
riass 



Book 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 




D.WIl) HARIOX 

Speaker uf the Missouri 'IVrritiMial House of Kepresentalives IS|8, President of tlie Missouri 
Constitutional Convention iSio. Iniied States Senator from Missouri 1820-1830 



(■28:! I — 1 



MISSOURFS 
STRUGGLE FOR STATEHOOD 

1804-1821 



BY 



FLOYD CALVIN SHOEMAKER, A.B., A.M. 

Secretary of 
The State Historical Society of Missouri 



THE HUGH STEPHENS PRINTING CO. 

JEFFERSON CITY 
1916 



. S 6'0 



Copyrighted, 1916 

By 

FLOYD CALVIN SHOEMAKER 

All rights reserved 




MAY -4 1916 



0)C1.A433315 



TO ISIDOR LOEB 

Native Missourian, Citizen of Public Spirit, 
Distinguished Scholar and Educator, Guide and 
Teacher in my Early Study of Government and 
Politics, This Book, in Token of Friendship and 
Gratitude Sincere, is Dedicated. 



PREFACE. 

To relate in an accurate manner the story of Missouri's 
struggle for statehood, of her first constitutional convention 
and constitution, and of her first state election and legislature, 
has been my purpose. The birth of a state is an important 
event. The travail of the State of Missouri was especially 
significant even in the history of the Nation. Congress alone 
was forced to adopt two compromises after four sessions of 
debate before the "Missouri Question" was settled. The ex- 
istence of slavery in new states and territories was for the first 
time the great problem in public discussion and Congressional 
debate. The national side of Missouri's struggle for statehood 
has received more or less attention from writers: the local side 
has been passed over with little comment. The latter made its 
appeal to me over six years ago. Beginning in 1909 and con- 
tinuing to 1911, I made a study of the history and origin of the 
Missouri constitution of 1820. During the years following I 
enlarged this study to its present scope. 

Few secondary works were used in this volume. Private 
and public manuscripts, laws, constitutions, journals of 
legislative bodies and constitutional conventions, memoirs and 
newspapers, have been the bases of most statements. The 
chief defect of the work lies in its lack of a Bibliography. This 
has been largely remedied, however, by the foot-notes which 
explain where the material consulted may be found. 

To a number of persons I am indebted for aid. For sug- 
gestions and criticisms of a literary character, I beg to acknowl- 
edge the kind services of Profs. H. M. Belden, A. H. R. Fair- 
child and H. McC. Burrowes, of the English Department of 
the University of Missouri. For assistance of a historical 
nature, I am under obligations to Prof. F. F. Stephens, of the 
History Department of the University of Missouri, and to the 
Hon. Louis Houck, of Cape Girardeau, Missouri. To Mr. 
Houck I am specially indebted for his mature advice and sug- 

(5) 



6 Preface. 

gestions on several of the early chapters, for the information 
obtained from his History of Missouri, and for the use of most 
of the cuts in this book. No general work on Missouri history 
down to 1820 bears comparison with Houck's History of Mis- 
souri. This work should be in the hands of every student of 
western and Missouri history. It and Prof. H. A. Trexler's 
Slavery in Missouri were, in fact, practically the only secondary 
works that helped me. 

To the hundreds of Missourians who furnished me with 
information relating to the delegates who framed Missouri's 
first constitution, I especially wish to acknowledge thanks of 
appreciation. Without their help and the kind services of the 
editors of the State in forwarding my quest for information, 
I could never have written the chapter on The Fathers of the 
State. Without the aid of Dr. Mereness, of Washington, D. C, 
I could not have obtained copies of the early Missouri petitions 
in the National archives. To Mr. Putnam, librarian of the Li- 
brary of Congress, and to his courteous assistants, I am under 
obligations for help of the greatest value. Modesty should 
not, I think, estop me from also acknowledging the extent and 
character of the information obtained from the invaluable col- 
lections of The State Historical Society of Missouri. Most of 
my work was done in the library of this institution and to it 
I feel under special obligations. 

The delay in publishing this work has been a source of deep 
regret to me. The Hugh Stephens Printing Company did well 
its part, my duties in The State Historical Society prevented 
me, however, from handling proof as fast as I had expected. 

The approaching centennial of Missouri's statehood makes 
opportune this volume. From it facts may be obtained that will 
give a more secure foundation to the mass of popular literature 
that will be published on Missouri history during the next half 
decade. To have accurate information on Missouri's struggle 
for statehood, on her first constitutional convention and con- 
stitution, on her first state election and on the inner workings of 
her first general assembly, is not only desirable but important 
to Missouri and Missourians. To place this information in 
the hands of all seeking it, is my excuse for writing this book. 



CONTENTS. 



Page 
Chapter I. Missouri Constitutional History During 

THE Territorial Period 9 

Chapter II. Missouri Petitions for Statehood and the 

Struggle in Congress 37 

Chapter III. Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1819. .. . 81 
Chapter IV. Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820 — 

Election of Delegates 114 

Chapter V. Fathers of the State — Personnel of the 

Constitutional Convention of 1820 135 

Chapter VI. Labors of the Convention 166 

Chapter VII. Authorship of the Missouri Constitu- 
tion OF 1820 193 

Chapter VIII. Origin and Content of the Constitu- 
tion OF 1820 212 

Chapter IX. A De Facto State 254 

Chapter X. Second Missouri Compromise 290 

Chapter XI. Statehood in the Union 302 

Appendix I. Memorial to Congress of the Citizens 
OF Missouri Territory, 1817, Requesting State- 
hood 321 

Appendix II. Memorial and Resolutions of Missouri 
Territorial Legislature, 1818, Petitioning Con- 
gress FOR Statehood 324 

Appendix III. Missouri Constitution of 1820 and 
Ordinance of Missouri Constitutional Conven- 
tion, 1820 329 

Appendix IV. Missouri's Solemn Public Act, 1821 .... 360 
Index 363 



(7) 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 



Page 
Barton, David. By courtesy of Mrs. Josephine Barton, 

Kansas City, Mo Frontispiece 

Baber, Hiram H. From Louis Houck's History of Missouri, 

Vol. III., p. 265 148 

Bates, Edward. From Louis Houck's Hist, of Mo.,\U. \^. 120 
Benton, Thomas H. From Louis Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 

268 120 

Boundary of Missouri as First Suggested in 1817. From 

Houck's Hist, of Mo., L 3 66 

Boundary of Missouri as Suggested by the Territorial Legis- 
lature in 1818. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., L 5 66 

Boundary of Missouri as Adopted by Congress in 1820. 

From Houck's Hist, of Mo., L 6 66 

Boundary of Missouri with the Platte Purchase Added. 

From Houck's Hist, of Mo., L 12 66 

Charless, Joseph. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 65 120 

Chouteau, Pierre, Jr. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 254 120 

Cook, John D. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 266 148 

Jones, John Rice. From Houck's Hist, of Mo.,\U.2bl 148 

McNair, Alexander. From Houck's Hist, of Mo.,\\\. 253. 120 
"Mansion House" Hotel. From Official Manual of Mis- 
souri 1913-1914, p. 15, by courtesy of Hon. Cornelius 

Roach, Sec. of State 166 ' 

"Missouri Hotel." Ihid 166 

Missouri's Temporary Capitol at St. Charles, Mo., 1821- 

1826. Ihid 310 

Pettus, William G. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 250. . 120 

Ramsay, Jonathan. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., HL 263. 148 

Reeves, B. H. From Houck's Hist, of Mo.,Ul.2b^ 148 

Scott, John. From Houck's Hist, of Mo., \U. 12, 148 



(8) 



CHAPTER I. 

MISSOURI CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY DURING THE 
TERRITORIAL PERIOD. 

In the history of an American commonwealth there appear 
relatively few dates that chronicle events of commanding im- 
portance. Ranking first in the history of Missouri and one of 
the foremost in that of the United States, is April 30, 1803. 
On that date was concluded the treaty between this Nation and 
France for the cession of Louisiana. The ratification of this 
treaty was advised by the United States Senate and was made 
by President Jefferson on October 21, 1803; and on the same 
day ratifications were exchanged and a proclamation was issued 
to that effect.^ By this treaty the United States came into the 
absolute possession of the largest and most valuable extent of 
territory that was ever obtained purely through purchase by 
any nation since the dawn of history. Prior to 1762 France 
had held legal title to Louisiana, but since the settlements made 
in that part now included in the State of Missouri had been 
few, the French law need not receive consideration here, From 
1762 to 1800 Spain held legal title to Louisiana. By the Treaty 
of San Ildefonso, October 1, 1800, Louisiana was retroceded by 
Spain to France, but Spain remained in actual possession almost 
up to the time of transfer to the United States in 1803. During 
a period of thirty-four years the Spanish law of Upper Louisiana 
governed the people within the present limits of Missouri.^ 
Nor were these laws less binding after the cession of 1803, 
except as they were expressly annulled, superseded, or amended.' 
However, for our purposes, the provisions of the Spanish laws 



> Treaties & Conventions, I. 508-11; Mo. Ter. Laws, I. 1-4. 

' Houck, Hist. Mo., I. 287, 298. The secret treaty of Fontalnebleau, De- 
cember 3, 1762, ceded the territory west of the Mississippi to Spain. France 
ofiQcially advised the director-general of Louisiana of this fact in a letter dated 
April 21, 1764. On the 18th of August, 1769, Spain took possession of Louisiana, 
and on May 20, 1770, Upper Louisiana was formally surrendered to Spain. 

' Casselberry, First Laws of the Miss. Valley, Western Journal, I. 19 If; 4 Mo, 
Reports, p. 380; 10 Mo. Reports, p. 199; Mo. Ter. Laws, 1816. p. 436. 

(9) 



10 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

of Upper Louisiana may be disregarded. The English system 
of jurisprudence gradually superseded that of the Continent 
in Upper Louisiana, and today the organic law of Missouri rests 
on an Anglo-American basis beginning with the act of Congress 
of October 31, 1803. 

It is important to notice in this connection one of the 
articles of the treaty of cession of 1803. Article III stated: 
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated 
in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as 
possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, 
to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities 
of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall 
be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their 
liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." At the 
time of Missouri's struggle for admission in 1819 and 1820, it 
appears from the articles in the territorial newspapers that 
practically every well informed Missourian was familiar with 
this article and especially with that part which guaranteed the 
inhabitants protection "in the free enjoyment of their liberty, 
property, and the religion," etc. Slaves formed part of the 
"property" of the people of Upper Louisiana prior to 1803, and 
also after that time, and Congressional dictation on this subject 
only served to recall the third article of the treaty of 1803. 

Under Spanish rule, the Province of Louisiana was divided 
into a lower and an upper district for the purpose of facilitating 
governmental administration. There were several reasons for 
this division, the more important being the great distance sep- 
arating the two centers of settlement near the mouth of the 
Mississippi and that of the Missouri."* Also, the population 
around New Orleans, which was the seat of government of 
Lower Louisiana, was greater and represented a higher stage of 
development than we find in Upper Louisiana. The Governor- 



< Nicollet in his history of St. Louis, page 92, states that in 1763, Laclede, 
the founder of St. Louis, took three months to come from New Orleans to Ste. 
Genevieve with his flotilla, a distance of 1.286 miles. 

Cf. also Houck, Hist. Mo., II. 4. 

It took about three months to ascend the Mississippi at that time as is also 
evidenced in the Report of Don Pedro Piernas to Gov. O'Reilly dated Oct. 31, 
1769, (Houck, Spanish Regime in Mo., I. 66-75.) and in a letter of Fernando De 
Leyba dated July 11, 1778. (Ibid., pp. 163f.) 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 11 

General at New Orleans exercised direct jurisdiction over Lower 
Louisiana and appellate jurisdiction over the upper district; 
and a Lieutenant-Governor at St. Louis exercised direct juris- 
diction over Upper Louisiana.^ 

At the time of the cession the population of Upper Louis- 
iana was over ten thousand,® of which over one-half were Amer- 
icans.' Not only did Spanish law give place to English law, 
but even Spanish and French influence as represented by the 
population had already greatly diminished and was soon to 
become a negligible quantity as far as legislation was concerned. 
Excepting some of the large Spanish land grantees and a part 
of the American settlers, especially those around Cape Girar- 
deau and Mine a Breton, the inhabitants of Upper Louisiana 
neither rejoiced nor were they even reconciled either at the 
time when the treaty of cession became known or later when 
the actual transfer was made.^ As an historical illustration of 



» Stoddard, Sketches of Louisiana, chap. VIII. Loeb, Beginning of Mo. Leg. 
in Mo. Hist. R., I. 53f. 

• Stoddard, op. cit., p. 226, gives the population in 1804 as 10.340—9,020 whites 
and 1,320 slaves. 

' Ibid., p. 225, states that three-flfths of the population were "English Amer- 
icans." 

Perkins and Peck, Annals of the West, pp. 543f., gives the total population of 
Upper Louisiana in 1804 as 10,120 and divides it as follows: French and Spanish, 
3,760; Anglo-Americans, 5,090; Blacks, 1,270. 

Rufus Easton, later Territorial Delegate to Congress from Missouri, in a 
letter dated at St. Louis, January 17, 1805, to President Jefferson, states that in 
1801 the census taken of the inhabitants of Upper Louisiana showed a population 
of 10,301; and that according to the best informed persons in the district the 
population at the close of 1804 had risen to over 12,000. Of this latter number 
he thought that two-fifths were French and the others mostly immigrants from 
the United States. (Copy of this letter in State Hist. Soc. of Missouri: original 
in Mss. Div., Library of Cong., Jefferson Papers, 2d Series, vol. 32.) 

' "On the 9th day of July, 1803, at seven o'clock p. m. — and the precision 
with which this date is registered indicates the profound sensation with which 
the news was received — the inhabitants of St. Louis learned, indirectly at first, 
that Spain had retroceded Louisiana to Napoleon, and that the latter had sold 
it to the United States." Nicollet, p. 89. 

"It is easier to imagine than to describe the astonishment and wonder of the 
good colonists, when, as a sequel of the sundry official acts by which they were 
declared republicans, and their country a member of the great American confed- 
eration founded by Washington, they witnessed the arrival of a legion of judges, 
lawyers, notaries, collectors of taxes, etc., etc., and, above all, a flock of vampires 
In the shape of land speculators. Liberty, with the popular institutions that 
accompany her. was welcomed; their advantages were soon understood; etc." 
Ibid., pp. 90f. This last statement by Nicollet is not entirely true. American 
institutions were not welcomed, especially by the better class of Frenchmen, and 



12 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

however quickly they were understood, their advantages were late in being ap- 
preciated. See below the account of the French convention of delegates in Sep- 
tember, 1804. 

Mr. Primm says: — 

"When the transfer was completely effected — when in the presence of the 
assembled population, the flag of the United States had replaced that of Spain — 
the tears and lamentations of the ancient inhabitants, proved how much they 
dreaded the change which the treaty of cession had brought about." Perkins and 
Peck, op. cit., p. 537. 

Mr. Houck does not take the same position on this point. He says: "With- 
out the least objection on the part of the French population of Upper Louisiana, 
and to the great satisfaction of the American settlers, the jurisdiction of the 
United States was thus extended over the new territory." (Houck, Hist. Mo., 
II. 373). Speaking of the sentiment in Cape Girardeau, he adds: "At Cape 
Girardeau the people, who were all Americans, with the exception of Lorimier 
and Cousin, were pleased greatly with the transfer of the country and seem to 
have been decidedly hostile, if not to the Spanish Government, to the Spanish 
officers." (Ibid., p. 364.) However, regarding New Madrid he makes the following 
statement: "But the people of New Madrid were not pleased with the change 
of government and he [i. e. Don Juan La Vallee, who surrendered the New Mad- 
rid fort to Captain Bissell] writes that 'this change has caused the greatest anger 
among these habitans, who live here, and especially on the day of siu-render, 
during the ceremonies of which they have expressed the greatest grief.' 4" (Ibid., 
p. 363. The footnote No. 4 gives the authority for the foregoing as follows: 
"General Archives of the Indies, Seville — Report of La Vallee to the Marquis 
de Casa Calvo and Don Manuel de Salcedo — dated March 29, 1804.") 

Even as regards the inhabitants of Cape Girardeau, Major T. W. Waters, 
a resident of that town, wrote in a letter dated August 23, 1804, to President 
Jefferson as follows: "I will observe one thing to you. Sir, that many here do 
not like the change and every law that is passed that puts them in a worse situa- 
tion than they would have been under the Spaniards is criticised and the worst 
construction put on, and those that are fond of the change feel disappointed at 
the law that Congress has passed for the government of this country." (Ibid., 
pp. 385f.) It is however, quite probable that Major Waters referred purely to 
the change in sentiment after the cession was made and after the law of Congress 
of March 26, 1804, became known. 

Regarding the holders of large Spanish land grants and incidentally of the 
sentiment in St. Louis at the time of the cession, Mr. Houck says: "A few French 
land speculators, who , had secured large and important conces- 
sions of land, no doubt anticipated to reap great benefits. They well understood 
that land values would greatly increase, because free donations of land to actual 
settlers would no longer be made. Under the new government these holders of 
concessions and their assignees at once became and were regarded as the landed 
capitalists of the new territory. Such being the case, it is very probable that 
one of the chief beneficiaries of the favors of the late Spanish authorities became 
very enthusiastic and called for 'three cheers in honor of his adopted country', 
as has been stated. Nevertheless, it is said that Charles Gratiot was about the 
only man in St. Louis who took a personal interest in the transfer of the country 
to the United States; that the people as a whole were indifferent. But Gratiot 
had received large land grants and perhaps understood better than anyone in 
St. Louis at that time the immense benefit a change of government implied." 
(Ibid., pp. 373f.) Mr. Houck further says: "The general apathy of the French 
inhabitants at the time lead [led] many to think that the inhabitants were not 
fit for self-government." (Ibid., p. 375.) 

Major Amos Stoddard, who certainly was most competent to judge of the 
sentiment in Upper Louisiana at the time of the cession, wrote as follows: "In- 
deed, few of the French, and part of the English Americans only, were at first recon- 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 13 

ciled to the change, though thoy never manifested any discontent. The former 
did not doubt the justice of the United States; but they seemed to feel as if they 
had been sold in open market, and by this means degraded: the treaty of 1762, 
and the change under it in 1769, ruslied on their minds, and awakened all their 
apprehensions. The latter anticipated taxation, many of whom had abandoned 
their native country to avoid it, and voluntarily became the subjects of a govern- 
ment, careful not to impose any burdens on the agricultural part of the com- 
munity." (Stoddard, op. cit., p. 311. For an account of some of the actual 
benefits that did accrue then and later to Upper Louisiana under American rule, 
cf. ibid., pp. 253f., 266: and Brackenridge, Views of Louisiana, pp. 140, 143-145.) 
(Italics mine.) 

An equally reliable authority on this point is Rufus Easton, who on January 
17, 1805, wrote the following from St. Louis: "That they the French inhabitants 
are in general enemies to the change of Government requires no argument to dem- 
onstrate — it depends on fact. When it was rumoured thro' [sic] this Country 
last summer that a recession to Spain would take place, joy gladden in their hearts — 
This however must not be taken for a universal sentiment — It is only that of the 
few who have feasted upon the labors of the more ignorant and industrious and 
whom they prejudice and influence as they please. Many have sufHcient dis- 
cernment to perceive that the cession to the United States advanced their landed 
property at least two hundred per centum they thank the stars and are willing 
to give the praise to whom it is due." (Letter to Pres. Jefferson. Copy in State 
Hist. Soc. of Mo. Original in Mss. Dip., Library of Congress. Jefferson Papers, 
Sd Series, vol. 32.) 

Darby, although not a contemporary authority, was well acquainted with 
many who witnessed the transfer of Upper Louisiana in 1804. The following 
quotation is from his work: "It was Charles Gratiot who requested the In- 
habitants, in their native tongue, when the ceremony took place, to cheer the 
American flag, when it was for the first time run up and floated to the breeze on 
the western bank of the Mississippi. The cheers of the crowd were faint and 
few, as many, very many of the people shed bitter tears of regret at being trans- 
ferred, without previous knowledge, from the sovereignty of a government and 
language to which they had been accustomed and fondly attached, and imder 
which they had been bred, to that of a strange government, with whose manners, 
habits, language, and laws they were not familiar. There existed, moreover, 
in the minds of many of the French inhabitants a deep-rooted prejudice against 
the Americans, notwithstanding the encoiu-aging and conciliating speech made 
by their countryman and friend, Charles Gratiot, who was favorable to, and 
sustained and approved the transfer of the country." . . . "Mr. Jefferson, from 
his long residence in Paris, understood the French character well, was much 
attached to the French people, and was aware that the inhabitants of Louisiana 
disliked and were greatly opposed to the American government." (.Recollections, 
pp. 223f.) 

Scharff quotes Billon as follows regarding the sentiment in St. Louis in 1804: 
"On that day (March 9, 1804) the inhabitants witnessed a scene which, to much 
the largest portion of them, was fraught with sadness and apprehension. These 
people had been so long contented and happy under the mild sway of all their 
Spanish commandants, with one exception alone (De Leyba), that it was not sur- 
prising they should have entertained those feelings at being transferred, them- 
selves and homes, to a nation whose people were mainly descended from the 
English, a nation that for generations back they had looked upon as the natural 
and hereditary enemy of the land from whence they sprung. For it must be 
borne in mind that they were nearly all of French origin, and although under 
Spanish dominion, there were but few Spaniards in the country, outside of the 
officials and soldiery." (Hist. St. Louis, I. 259.) 



14 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

how circumstances may alter cases might be noted here the 
cold reception extended to the United States by these early 
Missourians of 1804 when they first learned of their newly made 
connection with the Federal Union of States, and on the other 
hand, how impassioned they were fifteen years later in their 
arguments for admission into that very Union. We believe 
that the reasons for their first attitude were: their attachment 
to the Spanish regime with its practical freedom from taxes and 
military services, with its swift and generally true justice, its 
liberal land policy, and its uniform respect for French institu- 
tions, customs and language; and their dislike of American laws 
and institutions, combined with the fear of some attack on 
slavery, such as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787^. Moreover, 
the French inhabitants felt insecure of their religion under the 
new Republic. ^° Years later when they perceived the benefits 
that would flow from statehood and when the flood of American 
immigration poured in, they naturally desired admission into 
the Union. 

The first organic law of American origin that applied to 
Louisiana was passed at the first session of the Eighth Congress 
of the United States on October 31, 1803, and provided a tem- 
porary government for the new district. This act empowered 
the President of the United States to take possession of Louis- 
iana, and placed under his direction all military, civil and judicial 
powers that had been exercised by the officials of the existing 
government. This great power was lodged in his hands until 



» It is here worthy of notice that on January 23, 1804, there was communi- 
cated to the United States Senate a "Memorial of the American Convention for 
Promoting the Abolition of Slavery" praying Congress to prohibit by law the 
importation of slaves into the "Territory of Louisiana, lately ceded to the United 
States." This memorial actually suggested an enactment on this subject similar 
to the one in the Northwest Ordinance. Am. State Papers, Misc., I. 386. The 
chaotic condition of society which had prevailed in the Illinois country after 
American occupation would also hardly have served to endear the United States 
in the minds of many of both the French and American settlers who had immi- 
grated to Upper Louisiana from their former homes on the east bank of the Mis- 
sissippi during the latter eighties and the nineties of the 18th century. Cf. also 
Kaskaskia Records 1778-1790. in III. Hist. Collections. V; especially letter of John 
Rice Jones, later Justice of Missouri Supreme Court, dated Oct. 29, 1789, at 
Kaskaskia to Major Hamtramck. (Ibid., pp. 514-517.) The inhabitants of 
Upper Louisiana, especially the older ones, also undoubtedly resented the manner 
of cession which appeared to them like a sale in the open market. 

'• Alback's, Annals of the West, p. 777. 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 15 

Congress made other regulations." Strange though it seems 
to us now, this law was not unfavorably received by the French 
inhabitants of Louisiana. And the reason for this attitude was 
not because they excused and appreciated it as a temporary 
makeshift government and therefore as a necessary, initiatory 
step towards later self-government, but rather because of their 
natural inclination for a military regime, due to years of training 
under just such a centralized government. The belief that this 
act was unpopular in Upper Louisiana is unfounded in fact. In 
the eyes of the French better classes it must have seemed at 
the time the ideal type of government for this territory. It 
was in the following year, after Congress had passed an act 
annexing Upper Louisiana to Indiana Territory, that these 
well-to-do Frenchmen petitioned Congress and through their 
representative, Chouteau, pleaded with President Jefferson for 
just this kind of government. 

Under this law Captain Amos Stoddard was appointed the 
first American civil commandant of Upper Louisiana. The 
seat of government remained at St. Louis, and little change in 
governmental administration was introduced. This was in 
accordance with the policy of the Washington officials, who 
wisely tried to pacify the fears of the inhabitants. ^^ Congress 
did not wait long, however, in making provision for the govern- 
ment of Louisiana. By an act of March 26, 1804, Louisiana 
was divided into two districts or territories. All south of the 
thirty-third degree of north latitude was to be called the "ter- 
ritory of Orleans;" and all north, the "district of Louisiana;" 
the line of demarcation being the present southern boundary of 
Arkansas. The District of Louisiana was placed under the 
government of Indiana Territory, which then consisted of a 
Governor, Secretary, and three Judges. The Governor and 
Judges exercised full judicial, legislative and executive power 



>' Stat, at Large, II. 245; Treaties & Conventions. I. 508ff. 

" Captain Stoddard had instructions that "inasmuch as the largest portion 
of the old inhabitants were strenuously opposed to the change of government, 
It would go far to conciliate them, and they would much sooner become reconciled 
to the new order of things, by making little, if any change in the modus operandi 
of the government, at least for a time." Billon, Annals of St. Louis, 1764-1804, 
p. 364. 



16 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

under certain general restrictions. They were specifically 
given power to establish inferior courts and prescribe their 
duties; make laws, etc., except those abridging religious freedom 
or those contrary to the laws of the United States; and it was 
also set forth that criminal trials were to be by a jury of twelve 
and civil trials involving amounts over $100 also to be by jury. 
The judges were to hold two annual courts in the district. It 
was provided, among other things, that the laws in force in the 
District of Louisiana which were not inconsistent with this 
act were to remain in force until altered. This act went into 
effect October 1, 1804,^^ and excepting the attempted legisla- 
tion bearing on the "Missouri Question" Congress never passed 
an act which applied solely to Missouri that was more detested 
by at least one-half of her population than was this one. It is 
hardly necessary to enter into a discussion of the laws governing 
the District of Louisiana passed by the Governors and Judges 
of Indiana Territory. There were sixteen acts passed in all; 
however, their bearing on this study is unimportant.^^ It should 
be stated that these laws were well suited to a pioneer com- 
munity like Missouri, and no criticism of them is found in any 
of the literature of that day. 

From the very beginning of Missouri's connection with the 
United States there has never existed the least timidity on the 
part of the people of this State to make known to the nation 



"Stat, at large, II. 283-289; Afo. Ter. Laws, pp. 5f. 

A large part of this act also dealt with the government of the Territory of 
Orleans. The inhabitants of Lower Louisiana included in the new "Territory 
of Orleans" were equally incensed by this act. They drafted a memorial protesting 
against the division of Louisiana into two parts and the lacii of self-government. 
This act gave the "Territory of Orleans" a territorial government of the first or 
lowest grade. This petition is said to have been signed by over two thousand 
heads of families of Louisiana. It was entitled a "Remonstrance Of The People 
Of Louisiana Against The Political System Adopted By Congress For Them." 
and was communicated to the Senate December 31, 1804. Am. Stale Papers, 
Misc.. I. 396ff. 

This petition was placed in the hands of a committee appointed by the House 
of Representatives. On January 25, 1805. the committee closed its reports with 
a resolution "that provision ought to be made by law for extending to the Inhab- 
itants of Louisiana the right of self-government." This resolution was passed 
by the House on January 28, 1805. Annals of Congress, pp. 1014-21. 

To this same committee was also referred the petition of the inhabitants of 
the "District of Louisiana," which will next be discussed. Ibid., p. 957. 

>« C/. also Loeb, op. cit., I. 59-71. 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 17 

in a perfectly constitutional way their wants and grievances. 
The legislation of Congress in 1804 for the inhabitants of the 
District of Louisiana was received with the greatest disfavor 
west of the Mississippi, and occasioned the first of a long series 
of petitions and remonstrances presented to Congress by the 
inhabitants of the present State of Missouri. These early peti- 
tions are characterized by temperate language and a tone of 
positiveness based on a just cause. Although at the time of 
the cession there was no considerable open dissatisfaction or 
opposition, in less than six months after that the discontent was 
widespread. The people of Upper Louisiana did not like the 
American regime with its numerous officials, tax gatherers and 
jury system. They regarded with equal disfavor the method 
provided for settling the Spanish land grants ;^^ the increased 
expenses under the American regime, e. g., taxes, road and mili- 
tary service without compensation; the absence of all repre- 
sentative government; and the act of March 26, 1804, in whole. 
As early as August 23, 1804, Major T. W. Waters of Cape 
Girardeau, a staunch American and a man of influence, wrote 
President Jefferson that a petition had been "drawn up" protesting 
against parts of that act of Congress.^^ On September 29, 1804, 
two days before the act of Congress of March 26, 1804, was to 
take effect, a "remonstrance and petition of the representatives 
elected by the freemen of the districts in the District of Louis- 
iana to Congress" was drawn up and signed in St. Louis by 
sixteen deputies from the five subdivisions now included in the 
State of Missouri. ^^ The sixteen delegates were apportioned 
as follows: two from each of the districts of New Madrid, 
Cape Girardeau, and Ste. Genevieve; six from St. Louis and 
"dependencies;" and four from St. Charles and "dependencies." 
The dissatisfaction with the law of March 26, 1804, was based 
on the grievances that it annexed upper Louisiana to Indiana 
Territory; that it contained no provisions granting self-govern- 
ment; that it did not protect and secure slavery west of the 



'• Stoddard, op. cit., p. 253. 
'• Houck, Hist. Mo.. II. 385. 387f. 

" Am. State Papers, Misc., I. 400fif. This petition was presented to Congress 
January 4, 1805. 

M S— 2 



18 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Mississippi River; that it proposed settling the eastern Indians 
on Louisiana soil; and that section fourteen of that act, the 
section relating to the Spanish land grants, was unjust and un- 
reasonable. This last grievance was beyond question the most 
real and deeply seated of all. One prominent contemporary of 
that day even goes so far as to state that the annexation of 
upper Louisiana to Indiana Territory was only an ostensible 
objection to the law of 1804, and that the real ground for dis- 
satisfaction was the land title clause. ^^ 

This interesting petition remonstrates at some length 
against the division of the Louisiana Purchase into two parts 
and states that the ceded territory if left as one whole had 
sufficient population to be admitted as a state; that the North- 
west Ordinance provided for the admission of States in that 
district which had a population of sixty thousand and that 
Ohio when admitted did not have more than from thirty-three to 
forty thousand free inhabitants; that the third article of the treaty 
of cession provided that the inhabitants of Louisiana were to 
be incorporated into the United States as soon as possible; that 
if Congress could divide Louisiana once, she could subdivide 
indefinitely whenever the population became sufficient to form a 
state, and thus would Louisiana be always oppressed. This 
part of the remonstrance against the division of Louisiana was 
followed by a protest against the form of government provided 
for the "District of Louisiana." The delegates seriously ob- 
jected to being under the government of another territory; 
being under a governor of another territory who did not reside 
or hold a freehold estate in the District of Louisiana; the seat 
of government being at Vincennes, which was one hundred and 
sixty-five miles over impassable roads from them, and the 
governor sometimes even farther distant; the laws of Indiana 
Territory not being similar to those of Louisiana, e. g., slavery 
existed in Louisiana and was prohibited in the Northwest Ter- 
ritory; and to the absence of a Congressional law on slavery, 
which might make the inhabitants of the District of Louisiana 
feel that perhaps some day Congress would abolish it, even 
though by the treaty with France they were protected in their 



• •Letter of Rufus Easton, op. cil. 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 19 

property. In short they objected to the great injustice of being 
under Indiana Territory; but they also objected, and, we believe, 
in a more serious way, to the fourteenth section of the act of 
Congress of March 26, 1804, which declared null and void all 
Spanish land grants made subsequent to the treaty of San Ilde- 
fonso, and to the fifteenth section of this same act which settled 
Indians from east of the Mississippi on the land in Louisiana 
District. Further, they objected to the use of the inferior 
word "District" as applied to Louisiana in contradistinction to 
"Territory" as applied to Indiana and Orleans.^^ There was 
really much righteous wrath on the part of the Louisiana in- 
habitants against that part of the Act of Congress which pro- 
posed settling the Indians from the country east of the Mis- 
sissippi in this district. The necessity of protecting themselves 
against the Indians already west of the Mississippi imposed 
labors and hardships on those pioneers. Even President Jef- 
ferson, who, we think, lacked here his usual foresight, warmly 
favored this removal of the savages.'*' 

The delegates then asked that the act which divided Louis- 
iana into two territories and which provided a temporary govern- 
ment thereof, be repealed; that there be made a permanent 
division of Louisiana legally; that the Governor, Secretary, and 
Judges of Louisiana District be appointed by the President and 
reside and hold property there; that the above officers be ap- 
pointed from those speaking both French and English; that the 
records of each county and the proceedings of the courts of Louis- 
iana District be kept in both French and EngHsh; that Louisiana 
District be divided into five counties and that the people of 
each county elect two members for a term of two years to form 
with the Governor a Legislative Council ; that they be protected 
in their slaves and be given the right to import slaves. They 
also asked that Louisiana District be permitted to send a dele- 
gate to Congress and that funds be apportioned and lands set 



"Houck, Hist. Mo., II. 388. 

"Jefferson's Writings. VIII. 249. In a letter to Horatio Gates dated July 
11, 1803, speaking of Louisiana Jefferson writes: "If our legislature dispose of 
it with the wisdom we have a right to expect, they may make it the means of 
tempting all our Indians on the East side of the Mississippi to remove to the 
West, and of condensing instead of scattering our population." 



20 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

apart for French and English schools in each county and also 
for a "seminary of learning." And, finally, they requested that 
private engagements which had been entered into during the 
Spanish rule and which were conformable to the Spanish law, 
be maintained; that former final judgments rendered according 
to the Spanish law, should not be reversed; and that former 
judgments which had been rendered under the Spanish law and 
which according to it were appealable, should still be appeal- 
able to the proper United States courts. 

This petition was accompanied by a declaration of "the 
Representatives of the District of Louisiana, in General Assembly 
met," signed in St. Louis September 30, 1804. There were 
fifteen deputies from five districts and from Femme Osage in 
this latter meeting, which was held in St. Louis. The declaration 
was signed by the president and secretary of the convention 
on the 30th and the authenticity of their signatures was certi- 
fied by Amos Stoddard, Captain and First Civil Commandant 
in Upper Louisiana, who added "that respect ought to be paid 
to what they affirm." -^ The declaration of the fifteen delegates 
of L^pper Louisiana simply stated that "Mr. Augustus Chouteau" 
and "Mr. Eligius Fromentin" had been "unanimously chosen" 
to act "as the deputies, delegates, and agents, general and 
special, for the inhabitants of Louisiana, for the purpose of 
presenting to the honorable the Congress of the United States" 
the "humble petition" aforesaid. Of the sixteen names of the 
delegates attached to the "petition," the document first referred 
to above, thirteen are the same as are affixed to the "declara- 
tion." There was also a slight change in the apportionment 
of the delegates who signed the "declaration:" there being one 
each from New Madrid and Femme Osage; four from Cape 
Girardeau; two from Ste. Genevieve; four from St. Louis and 
dependencies; and three from St. Charles and dependencies." 

This memorial or petition as adopted and transmitted to 
Congress by Auguste Chouteau, was quite different from the 



'^ Am. State Papers, Misc., I. 404f. 

" Houck gives the names of eighteen delegates who signed the petition dated 
September 29. 1804. This authority seems to have combined the names of all 
the delegates who signed this petition with the two new members who signed the 
"declaration" of September 30, 1804. Cf. Houck, Hist. Mo.. II. 391. 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 21 

one originally prepared. No early public document of Missouri 
down to the framing of Missouri's first constitution in 1820 
and the Solemn Public Act of Missouri's First Legislature in 
1821, has a more interesting history than this one. It involved 
the first successful wire-pulling in Missouri history, and had it 
not been for an unnamed school-master, might have resulted 
very disastrously for Missouri. The inner history of this 
remarkable document is set forth in a letter of Rufus Easton, 
dated at St. Louis January 17, 1805, to President Jefferson. He 
wrote that immediately after the Act of Congress of 1804 be- 
came known in Missouri, about twenty of the inhabitants of 
St. Louis assembled with a view to appoint a committee which 
was to call a convention of delegates from the different districts, 
and that this convention was to form a plan of government 
for upper Louisiana.^^ The whole affair seems to have been 
arranged by the French inhabitants, as no American was, in- 
vited, although there was a number of prominent ones here. 
It was so slated that a majority of the delegates to be selected 
was to be of the French interest by having them elected by 
committees who in turn were chosen principally by French 
villages. How successfully the plan worked is evident from 
the result of the election. Of the sixteen signers of the "pe- 
tition," seven were Americans and nine Frenchmen; and of the 
total eighteen signers of both documents, nine were Americans 
and nine Frenchmen. The name of Stephen Byrd, who was a 
delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1820, appears in 
the "declaration" as a delegate from Cape Girardeau. Eligius 
Fromentin, one of the delegates from New Madrid, seems to 
have been the framer of the "petition," as he is credited with 
being the most learned. In 1812 this man was one of the first 
United States Senators from the State of Louisiana. Prac- 
tically all the French and American delegates were men of 
wealth and held large land tracts, and this placed them in perfect 
accord regarding the Spanish land grants.^* 

«» Op. cit. Easton said that these twenty inhabitants met on April 2, 1804, 
to peruse the bill of Congress of March 26. The date of this meeting, as given, 
may be correct, but, if so, it was the proposed bill that was perused, since the 
law of March 26 could not have reached St. Louis by April 2. 

«« Houck, Hist. Mo., II. 39ff. 



22 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

The original petition drafted by this convention recom- 
mended in reality a "gouvernement militaire." It provided 
that they have a Governor residing in the territory possessing 
both civil and military jurisdiction; that there be Commandants 
for each district possessing like powers, with an appeal to the 
Governor in certain cases; that there be no trials by jury "except 
in such cases as in the opinion of the Governor or Commodant 
justice should absolutely require it for special cause to be 
shown;" and that the practice of lawyers be entirely prohibited. 
It compared the Governor and Judges of the Indiana Territory 
to "foreign Bashaws — to Pro-praetors and Pro-Consuls under 
the more modest name of Governor and judges sent here to 
rule over the people and to write liberty as had been done in 
Venice upon our prison walls — ;" and declared that the treaty 
of cession had been broken; and "a motion was made by one of 
the members to call upon the Emperor of France thro' his 
Ministers to enforce a fullfillment." 

This draft of the petition was presented to Captain Stoddard, 
who made several slight changes in it so as to obtain for it a 
reading in Congress. It was then again considered by the 
convention and singularly failed to pass. Easton gives the fol- 
lowing reason for this failure: "But for a person who resided 
some years within the United States in character of a school- 
master who understands the French language, catching at the 
popular declamation of some members of Congress — Governed 
by the principles advanced in the memorial of Orleans and 
fired with ambition to distinguish himself in the political world 
this original plan would not have been changed — The flame of 
his eloquence and unparallelled knowledge of American politics 
changed the tone to the whole system and the plan was to ridi- 
cule the Majority of Congress for their professions of Repub- 
licanism and boasted love of liberty — ." " 

After the petition had been changed to its present and final 
form, it was entrusted to Chouteau to take to Washington. 
There is little doubt that the wealthy French inhabitants fav- 



" Easton's Letter, op. cit. Cf, also Fortier, Hist. La., III. 16f., and Am. State 
Papers, Misc., I. 396ff. 

After careful searching we have been unable to ascertain who this unique 
school-master was. 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 23 

ored a military government without civil law and lawyers. 
Chouteau had presented his views for such a government to 
Gallatin during the previous summer of 1804, when many of 
the leading Frenchmen of Louisiana District were in Washington, 
Gallatin wrote to President Jefferson regarding this interview 
with Chouteau, and stated, that while he respected the zeal and 
ability of the Frenchman, he did not endorse his views and those 
of his business associates. It is by no means improbable that 
when Chouteau carried this democratic petition of September, 
1804, to Washington, he still pleaded for the military system. 
The democratic ideals of Jefferson, however, made this plea 
a vain one, and nothing more was heard of the "gouvernement 
militaire." 2« 



" Houck, Hist. Mo.. II. 400. 

The following valuable letter is copied from note No. 163, p. 355. vol. II., 
of Robinson, Louisiana. 1785-1807: "The following extract from a letter (en- 
titled Separate observations") dated St. Louis, November 4, 1804 (conserved in 
the Bureau of Rolls and Library, Department of State. Territorial Papers, vol. 
I., "Louisiana"), shows conditions in Upper Louisiana or Louisiana Territory: 

"I conceive it may not be improper to mention some circumstances con- 
cerning the Petition from the Committee held in September last at this Place, 
before my arrival, for tho' I have not read that Memorial I have heard it much 
spoken of, and I have reason to think a Paper, said to be a copy of it, may have 
been sent to the public printer for insertion, in which case it will be found different 
from the original, that pretended having been taken from the first draft of it before 
its ultimate correction. It seems the act of Congress of March last concerning 
Louisiana created some discontent in the minds of People here, they wished and 
expected a Government of their own. It hurt their pride to be made dependent 
on Indiana for officers and Laws, because their population and territory are much 
more extensive than those of their neighbors. They conceived the act of Congress 
infringed some of the Rights insured to them by the Treaty, placing them in a 
more degraded situation than other territories of the United States. They 
formed a Convention in which a Committee was chosen to draw up a Petition 
to Congress. The Member who made the sketch of the Memorial was sent out 
before my arrival and I have not seen him, but I am told he is a man of warm 
passions and I conceive him to be probably of a character such as I have known 
in the French Revolution, who allowed their exalted ideas to run away with their 
understanding and could not distinguish between the true principles of liberty, 
and those leading to Anarchy and despotism ... I have a particular satisfaction 
at the time in saying that the inhabitants are much pleased with Govr. Harrison 
now here. His affability and easy access form a strong contrast with what they 
had been accustomed to — all the disinterested sensible men among them are glad 
of the change of Government, but there are some, as you will easily believe who 
have prejudices which time and experience will wipe away — there are others who 
.enjoyed, or were directly concerned in, extensive privileges, or had certain ad- 
vantages which attached them to the former system. I am speaking of the French 
part of the inhabitants, whose sentiments I know best by their considering me as 
one of themselves on account of the language and my very long residence in 
France. The appearance of hostilities — an idea many of them have of this part 



24 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Within two months after this first petition had been pre- 
sented to Congress, an act was passed on March 3, 1805, which 
remedied most of the objections and granted some of the re- 
quests set forth by the St. Louis convention of September, 
1804." It was rather satisfactory to the French inhabitants, 
as it established a separate centraUzed form of government. 
The act provided : (1) that the "District of Louisiana" be changed 
to the "Territory of Louisiana;" (2) that this territory be sep- 
arated from the government of Indiana territory; and (3) that 
a new government of the Territory of Louisiana be estabHshed. 
As Missouri by this act became a territory of the lowest grade 
and from this stage gradually advanced to statehood, it is a 
matter of importance to notice the plan of government out- 
lined by this second organic act of Congress relating to Mis- 
souri. 

The executive power was lodged in the hands of the Gov- 
ernor, whose tenure was appointive by the President of the 
United States, whose term was three years, and who must 
reside in the territory. His powers were wide, being both 
executive and legislative in their scope. He was commander 
of the militia, superintendent ex-officio of Indian affairs, had the 
power of appointment and command of all ofificers in militia 
below the rank of general officers, could grant pardons and 
reprieves under certain limitations, could divide the territory 
into districts where the Indian titles were extinct, and appoint 
magistrates for civil and military purposes. Associated with 
the Governor was a Secretary, whose duties were clerical, and 
who became governor when that office was vacant. His term 



of the country being about to be receded to that nation for the Floridas. are topics 
often brought forward which have tended to show me the real inclinations of 
some and they open their minds with less reserve by not considering me in the 
light of a stranger." — Letter unsigned — "From a man who went up Mississippi 
to become acquainted with Peltry trade." 

The dislike of lawyers on the part of the French inhabitants is also seen in 
the Historical and Political Reflections on Louisiana by Paul Alliot. (Robertson. 
op. cit., I. 135, 137.) Speaking of St. Louis that physician says: — "The magis- 
trate who renders justice does not molest or persecute any citizen. He is a father 
whose entrails are at all times open to his children." "None of those blood- 
suckers known under the names of bailifiTs, lawyers, and solicitors are seen there." 
(This was written before the transfer in 1803.) (Cf. ibid., II. 319.) 

"Stat, at Large, II. 331f. Passed at second session of Eighth Congress, 
March 3, 1805, and went into effect July 4, 1805. 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 25 

was four years, and he was also required to live in the territory. 
His tenure was the same as that of the Governor. 

The legislative power was vested in the Governor and the 
three territorial Judges, or a majority of them. This body 
or Legislative Council had power to establish inferior tribunals 
and prescribe their duties. It was empowered to make all 
laws conducive to the good government of the inhabitants of 
the territory provided no law should be enacted inconsistent 
with the Constitution and Laws of the United States or abridg- 
ing the religious freedom of the inhabitants or dispensing with 
trial by jury in both civil and criminal cases under certain 
regulations. All laws passed by this council were subject to 
the ratification of the President and Congress. 

The judicial power was vested in three Judges appointed 
by the President for four years, and in such inferior tribunals 
as might be established by the Legislative Council. The three 
Judges or any two of them were to hold two courts annually 
in the Territory and to have the same jurisdiction as that 
formerly held by the Judges of Indiana Territory. 

The compensation for the five foregoing officers was the 
same as obtained in Indiana Territory. All were required to 
take an oath of allegiance to the United States. It was ex- 
pressly provided that all existing laws were to remain in force 
until modified. 

Such are the general provisions of this act. It did much 
to mollify the inhabitants of Upper Louisiana, and, although 
not granting them the elective tenure nor a delegate in Con- 
gress, it was far more satisfactory than the previous act. 
They now had a territory and a government that were not 
united to or under any other subdivision of the United States, 
and, although their new officials were appointed in Washing- 
ton, and subject in every express way to the national govern- 
ment, still they were required to reside in the territory, and this 
alone was worth a great deal to the inhabitants of a pioneer 
country where distance played such an important part in law 
administration. 

During the following half decade the Territory of Louis- 
iana made rapid strides in development. The increase of popu- 



26 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

lation alone justified a change in the governmental machinery 
provided for by the act of 1805. The population of the terri- 
tory in 1810 had risen to 19,976, being distributed among the 
five districts as follows: Cape Girardeau, 3,888; New Madrid, 
2,296; St. Charles, 3,505; Ste. Genevieve, 4,620; and St. Louis, 
5,667.2^ This remarkable growth in population naturally 
created a desire for a higher grade of territorial government. 
It was the wish of a large majority of inhabitants of this terri- 
tory that the American policy of self-government be applied 
to them. This wish was soon revealed in the numerous peti- 
tions presented to Congress on that subject. Never in the 
history of Missouri, during neither the French, Spanish, Ameri- 
can, Territorial, nor State Period, have her inhabitants framed, 
signed, and presented so many petitions to Congress as issued 
from the Territory of Louisiana from 1810 to 1812 inclusive. 
But, to us even this seems less remarkable than is the failure 
heretofore of every writer on Missouri history to notice a single 
petition of that time. This silence can be construed only as 
the result of a lack of information, since the greatest importance 
always attaches to those documents that reflect the sentiment 
of so large a district of people in regard to a change in their 
organic law. At least fifteen of these petitions appeared, twelve 
of which are still in existence. These twelve requested that the 
Territory of Louisiana be raised from a territory of the first to 
one of the second grade. One of the other petitions, very 
significantly, prayed that no alteration be made in the form of 
government.-* 



«• U. S. Census, 1900. Pop., I. 27f. 

«» Six hundred and thirty-six signatures are attached to five of these petitions, 
the number of signatures on the other seven petitions were not counted. These 
petitions were first noticed by us in the Annals of Congress. W^e liad always 
wondered at the silence of Missouri historians on this point, and could hardly 
be convinced that Missoiu-i became a territory of the second grade without there 
having been an application for same on the part of the inhabitants of Louisiana 
Territory. An examination of the Annals proved our conclusion to be correct. 
Mr. Parker's Calendar of Papers in Washington Archives relating to the Territories 
of the United States (Carnegie Institution, 1911) showed that these petitions were 
still in existence. Finally, after having made futile application to the House 
Librarian we interested Dr. J. Franklin Jameson who at our request placed Dr. 
N. D. Mereness on the trial of these documents. Dr. Mereness not only located 
all of these petitions but also made copies of same. These copies are now in the 
library of The State Hist. Soc. of Mo. The original documents are still preserved 
in the House Files in Washington, D. C. 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 27 

On January 6, 1810, there was presented to Congress "a 
petition of sundry inhabitants of the Territory of Louisiana, 
praying that the second grade of Territorial Government may 
be established in said Territory." This was probably one of 
the first of these petitions and, we think, was drawn up and 
signed in 1809. It based its request for a higher grade of 
territorial government on the treaty of cession, on the unsatis- 
factory exercise of both legislative and judicial powers when 
vested in the same persons, and on the large size of the militia 
in the Territory of Louisiana compared with the militia in either 
Indiana or Mississippi territories. This petition was referred 
to a committee on January 9, 1810, which reported, on January 
22d, a bill "further to provide for the government of the Territory 
of Louisiana." This bill after its second reading was referred 
to the Committee of the whole, in which it was not brought up 
during that session.^" On January 15, 1810, an exact copy of 



"Annals of Congress. I. 1157, 1253. Following is a copy of this petition 
as found in the House Files by Dr. Mereness: 

[Dec. 1809?] Petition of sundry inhabitants of the territory of Louisiana — 
Referred Jan. 9th. 1810. [No. 3458 in Parker.] 

[This petition is as follows:] To the honble the Sen. and Ho. of Reps, of the 
U. S., in Cong, assembled 

The petition of the undersigned inhabitants of the Territory of La., most 
respectfully sheweth. 

That they have waited with anxious but silent expectation for the arrival 
of that period, when pursuance of the treaty by which Louisiana was ceded to 
the United States, they are to be admitted "according to the principles of the 
federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities 
of Citizens of the United States." These rights they do humbly conceive cannot 
be enjoyed while the judicial and legislative powers are vested in the same persons. 
Where powers are combined which the constitution requires should be seperate, 
[sic] and where the maker of laws, is also obliged to expound, and to decide upon 
them. Your petitioners are fully impressed with the idea that legislative powers, 
are never better, nor more satisfactorily exercised than when committed to those 
persons who ate elected for that purpose by the people themselves, whose con- 
duct must be regulated by those very laws thus made. The inhabitants of the 
territory of Orleans, have already obtained those rights which your petitioners 
now ask, and to which they deem themselves also entitled. The last returns of 
the militia of this territory will be found to exceed those of the Indiana and 
Mississippi territory, and the number is daily increased by rapid emigrations 
to this territory. Confiding therefore, in the justice and wisdom of your honWc 
bodies, they most respectfully ask, that a law may be passed for enabling the in- 
habitants of this territory to have and enjoy the rights and privileges consequent 
upon a second grade of terl gov't, and that the same may be established in this 
territory. 

And your petitrs as in duty bound will ever pray. [This petitn is printed) 
[76 signatures] 



28 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

the foregoing petition was referred in the House. This latter 
document had attached to it about two hundred and seventy- 
three signatures, the former had seventy-six.^^ On February 22, 
1810, several petitions to Congress "from a number of the in- 
habitants of the Territory of Louisiana" were presented to the 
Senate. Their purpose and wording were, we infer, the same 
as the other two presented to the House.^^ Another duplicate 
petition, of this year, bearing onl}^ nine signatures was pre- 
sented to the House,^' but nothing was accomplished by any 
of these at this time. 

At the third session of the Eleventh Congress, on January 
3, 1811, a committee, appointed by the House on December 11, 
1810, "presented a bill further providing for the government of 
the Territory of Louisiana." After a second reading the bill 
was lost in the Committee of the Whole and this Congress 
expired without passing an act on this matter.^* 

During the summer of 1811 numerous petitions of this 
kind were framed and signed in Louisiana Territory. Some of 
these originated in the Arkansas country and others in that 
part that lies within the present boundaries of Missouri. They 
were all similar in tone and argument to the 1810 petitions. 
The desire for a second grade of territorial government was 
strong, and this wish was strengthened by the still unsettled or 
unsatisfactorily settled condition of the land claims. The in- 
habitants of Louisiana Territory not only wanted a voice in 
their territorial or local government, but were equally desirous 
of having their wishes voiced in Congress by a regularly elected 
territorial delegate.^^ Not only were many of these petitions 



»' Ibid. Found in House Files. 

"Ibid, p. 678. 

«» Ibid. Found in House Files. 

*> Annals of Congress. 3d Sess., 11th Cong. (1810-11), p. 486. 

" Sometime during the session of 1811-12 five petitions were presented to 
the House. Each of the five is as follows according to Dr. N. D. Mereness: 

[Referred 1811-12.] Each of the "five petitions" listed by Parker imder 
No. 3468 is in part as follows: To the Honble the sen. & Ho of Reps — Sheweth; 
That convinced as well of their rights in pursuance of the treaty which ceded La. 
to the U. 8., to be admitted "according to the principles of the federal constitu- 
tion, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of the citizens 
of the United States," as of the advantages resulting from representative govern- 
ment, which rights and advantages have not been extended to them. They hope 
indeed, that as a free people, so far as the policy of territorial government will 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 29 

presented to the twelfth Congress at its first session but on 
December 27, 1811, there was also presented to the House "a 
certified copy of a presentment by the grand jury of the 'District 
of St. Charles,' in said Territory, representing that the second 
grade of Territorial government ought to be extended to the 
Territory; that the judges of the general court ought to reside 
in the Territory; and that further and equitable provisions 



admit, they may have a partial voice in the government which they support. 
Their sister territories of Orleans, Mississippi and Indiana, are fast approaching 
to political manhood, under the fostering hand of the General Government; 
wliile La. with a large and fast increasing population have not been admitted to 
the enjoyment of the same political blessings; all the powers of the government, 
as well executive and legislative, as legislative and judicial, are blended together, 
not only contrary to the treaty and "Federal Constitution," but also the political 
safety and happiness of the people. A large majority of your petitioners depend 
on agriculture for support, whose claims to land form the principal hope of them- 
selves and families, and more than two-thirds of their claims have been rejected 
by the board of commissrs; from whose official representations they have little 
to hope, and much prejudice to fear; for these reasons which are all important 
to your petitioners, they now most respectfully ask of your hon6/e body the 
passage of a law, which will admit them into what is denominated the second 
grade of territorial govt, (provided no better can be devised) which entitle them 
to a delegate in Congress by whom they can make known their unfortunate sit- 
uation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. [Foimd in House 
Files.] 

Another petition referred December 27, 1811, is an exact copy of the above 
(House Files, Parker, op. cil.. No. 3480.); another duplicate was read January 
6, 1812, (Senate Files, Parker, op. cil.. No. 3481.); and another bearing one hundred 
and ninety signatures was also presented to Congress. (House Files, Parker, op. 
cil.. No. 3487.) The following petition, dated Arkansas, 9th Sept. 1811, was 
referred Dec. 7, 1811: — 

Petition (dated Arkansas, 9th Septr 1811) for the Second grade of Govern- 
ment. — No. 3472 in Parker — Referred Dec. 7, 1811 to Comee of the whole House 
on the bill for the Govt of said Territory. Bill postponed in the Senate April 
22, 1812. 

This petitn is as follows: To the Honble — The Petition of the undersigned 
inhabitants of the Territory of La. Respectfully sheweth: That convinced as 
well of their rights (in pursuance of the Treaty which ceded La. [sic] to th[e] 
U. S.) to be admitted according to the Principals of the Federal Constitution to 
the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of Citizens [o]f the 
U. S. — as of the advantages resulting from a representative Gov't, which Rights 
and Advantages have not been extended to them — they hope indeed that as a 
free People so far as the Policy of Terl Gov't will admit they may have a Partial 
Voice in the Govt wch [which] they support. Their sister Territories of Orleans, 
Mississippi and Indiana are fast approaching to Political Manhood, under the 
Fostering hand of the Gen'l Gov't, while La. with a large and fast increasing 
Population, has not been admitted to the enjoyment of the same Political blessing. 
— all the Powers of the Gov't as well Executive and legislative, as Legislative and 
Judicial are blended together not only Contrary to the Treaty and Federal Con- 
stitution but also to the political safety and happiness of the People. 

A large majority of your Petitioners depend on Agriculture for support 
whose claims to lands form the Principal hope of themselves and families and more 



30 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

ought to be made in favor of rejected land claims." ^^ These 
were referred and undoubtedly were of the greatest influence in 
the final passage of the law of June 4, 1812. 

Although the local pressure on Congress favoring a higher 
grade of territorial government in Louisiana Territory was 
strong, we are hardly surprised to discover some undercurrent 
of opinion in this district that opposed raising the status of 
the territory. We have noticed how the act of 1805 was satis- 
factory to most of the inhabitants of Upper Louisiana especially 
to the French portion, and also why they preferred a centralized 
form of government. Wherever the French influence was strong 
whether in Indiana Territory, Louisiana Territory, or the Terri- 
tory of Orleans, the preference of that race has been for few 
officials, concentration of power in the hands of a few, and either 
an indifference or opposition to self-government unless some 
vital problem could be solved by no other means.^^ In Louis- 
iana Territory the special problem that concerned many, includ- 
ing both French and American inhabitants, was the land claim 
or land grant problem. Many claims had not been settled 
and many had been refused. The settlers, both old and new, 
thought that more lenient laws regulating these claims would be 
passed if only the Territory had a Delegate in Congress. There 
was also a sincere, strong sentiment for self-government in 
Louisiana Territory, but we believe that the opposition to this 
self-government or representative government would have been 



than two thirds [o]f their just Claims have been rejected by th[e) board of Com- 
missioners from whose official Representations they have little to hope. 

For these reasons wch are all important to your Petitioners they now most 
respectfully ask of your Honble body, the Passage of a Law wch will admit them 
into what is denominated the second grade of Ter/ Govt, wch will entitle them to 
a delegate in Cong, by whom they may make known their unfortunate situation — 
and your Petitrs as in duty bound will ever Pray. (88 signatures. The original 
of this petitn is not printed. Found in House Files] 

C/. also Annals of Congress, p. 557. 

" Annals of Congress, I. 58JfJ. 

" Indiana Territory in 1800 was largely French. They cared nothing for 
self-government. The influx of American settlers created a desire for a higher 
grade of territorial government. The French joined in this demand for self- 
government since through it they could make slavery more secure, which was a 
great object to be attained owing to the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance 
on that point. Cf. also Webster, Homer J., William Henry Harrison's Admin- 
istration 0) Indiana Territory, in Ind. Hist. Soc. Pub., IV. 202ff. Cj. Chapter 
VI of this work on the peculiar sentiment exhibited in Orleans Territory on the 
eve of framing a State Constitution. 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 31 

stronger than it was had not there been pressing for settle- 
ment hundreds of land claims. At all events we have record of 
one remonstrance and petition being presented to Congress that 
opposed a change in government. On December 7, 1811, there 
was presented to the House a remonstrance and petition of 
sundry inhabitants of St. Louis "stating the many injuries and 
inconveniences which would result from a change in their form 
of government, and praying that no alteration may be made 
in their said form of government." ^* This was referred to a 
committee from which it was never reported. The demand of 
the inhabitants of Louisiana for the higher grade of territorial 
government had become too insistent for Congress to longer 
delay. 

In the year 1812 afifairs reached a focus that made neces- 
sary at least some kind of action. The Territory of Orleans 
was admitted into the Union April 8, 1812, under the name of 
the State of Louisiana. This made expedient, though not es- 
sential, as some authorities have supposed, a change in name of 
the Territory of Louisiana. Action was taken by Congress, 
and on June 4, 1812, a law was passed changing the name of 
the Territory of Louisiana to the Territory of Missouri.^^ It 
was this law which gave to Missouri her present name; and it 
is very probable that had the Territory of Orleans taken the 
name of State of Orleans on its admission into the Union, then 
the Territory of Louisiana would have retained its name and 
in 1821 would have been admitted as the State of Louisiana. 
This act of June 4, 1812, raised Missouri to the second grade of 
territories and not only gave the inhabitants control of the 
lower house of the Legislature through the elective tenure and 
the election of a Delegate to Congress but also provided in 
section fourteen for a bill of rights.^*' 

The government provided for by this act was more com- 
plex in character that that in the act of 1805. The executive 
authority was still vested in a Governor whose term, tenure, 
and powers were the same as before, except that he had some 



" Abridg. of Debates of Cong., IV. 434. 

"Stat, at Large, II. 743-747; Cf. also Mo. Ter. Laws, I. 8-13. 
«• There are sixteen sections in this law, but they will not be taken up here 
in detail. 



32 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

enumerated powers, including that of convening the legislature 
on "extraordinary occasions." His veto power was absolute. 
No change was made in the term, tenure, and duties of the 
Secretary. 

It was in the legislative branch of the new government 
that the greatest changes are noticed. The legislative power 
was vested in a bicameral body called the "general assembly." 
This was composed of a Legislative Council and a House of 
Representatives. The former consisted of nine members, five 
making a quorum, appointed for five years by the President of 
the United States from a list of eighteen persons made by the 
territorial House of Representatives. Provision was made for 
filling vacancies by the President appointing one of two persons 
nominated by the lower house. Their qualifications were: that 
they should have resided in the territory for at least one year 
preceding appointment; that they should be at least twenty- 
five years of age; that they should have property of at least 
two hundred acres in the territory. They were disqualified 
from holding any other office of profit under the territorial 
government except that of justice of the peace. It was in the 
house of Representatives that the greatest innovation was 
made. This body was composed of representatives elected 
for two years by the people of the territory. The appointment 
was on the basis of one member to every five hundred free, 
white, male inhabitants until the number of representatives 
reached twenty-five, when the ratio was left under the regula- 
tion of the General Assembly. The qualifications for repre- 
sentatives were lower in nearly every respect than for members 
of the Council: the age qualification was twenty-one years; 
the residence qualification was the same as in the case of mem- 
bers of the Council; and the property qualification required one 
to be a freeholder in the county from which he was elected. 
Vacancies were filled by a new county election on writ of the 
Governor. Annual meetings of the General Assembly were 
provided for. The place of meeting was at St. Louis, and the 
time the first Monday in December unless the General Assembly 
set a different date. The Governor was empowered to lay off 



Co?istitulional History During Territorial Period. 33 

the territory into convenient counties for the election of thirteen 
representatives. 

The electors of representatives consisted of all the free, 
white, male citizens of the United States who were twenty-one 
years of age, had resided in the territory twelve months before 
the election, and had paid a territorial or county tax assessment 
made at least six months before the election. It was provided 
in the act of 1812 that all free, white, male persons who were 
inhabitants of Louisiana on December 20, 1803, and all free, 
white, male citizens of the United States who had immigrated 
to Louisiana since December 20, 1803, or who might hereafter 
do so, if otherwise qualified, could hold any ofifice of honor, trust 
or profit in the territory under the LTnited States or the Territory, 
and vote for members of the General Assembly and a Delegate 
to Congress during the temporary government provided for by 
that act. 

The powers of the General Assembly were large, comprising 
the power to make laws, civil and criminal; to establish inferior 
courts and prescribe their jurisdiction; to define the powers and 
duties of the justices of the peace and other civil officers of the 
territory; to regulate and fix fees, etc. There were certain 
express limitations placed on their power, however, that are 
important to notice. All bills had to be passed by a majority 
of each house and receive the approbation (signature) of the 
governor. They were by implication prohibited from passing 
any acts which would be inconsistent with the large number of 
privileges and rights reserved to the people and enumerated at 
some length in section fourteen of the law. This section four- 
teen is a very interesting paragraph, as it is the first bill of rights 
that Missourians ever had excepting those guarantees in the 
United States Constitution and is an epitome of the one included 
in the constitution of 1820. The General Assembly was also 
prohibited by express provision from interfering with the pri- 
mary disposal of the soil of the United States, etc., and from 
lev>'ing any tax or impost on the navigable waters in or touching 
the territory. 

The judiciary was composed of a Superior Court, inferior 
courts and courts of justices of the peace. The Superior Court 

M 8—3 



34 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

alone was set forth in detail, the others being left under the 
regulation of the General Assembly and Governor. This court 
was the same in composition and in term and tenure of members 
as that provided for in the act of 1805. Certain regulations were 
provided as regards its jurisdiction, and power was granted it 
and the inferior courts to appoint their clerks. 

Some miscellaneous provisions were also set forth that are 
important. All officials were required to take an oath to sup- 
port the Constitution of the United States and discharge faith- 
fully the duties of their office. The citizens of the territory 
were given the right to elect one Delegate to Congress. Schools 
and education were urged, and encouragement and aid promised 
from the United States lands in the Territory. It was provided 
that the acts of 1804 and 1805 when inconsistent with this act 
were repealed. 

Pursuant to the power granted him in the seventh section 
of the act of 1812, Benjamin Howard, Governor of the Territory 
of Louisiana, by proclamation issued October 1, 1812, divided 
the new Territory of Missouri into the five counties of St. 
Charles, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Cape Girardeau, and New 
Madrid, and gave them their boundaries.^^ Provision was made 
for the election from these counties of territorial representatives 
to the General Assembly and also a Delegate to Congress. 
Appended to this proclamation was a statement setting forth 
the qualifications of representatives and electors — which was 
taken from the act of Congress of June 4, 1812. Thus was set 
in working the new government of the Territory of Missouri. 

An attempt was made to amend the law of 1812, and on 
January 7, 1813, on motion of Mr. Hempstead (of Missouri) a 
committee was appointed by the House of Representatives "to 
inquire if any, and if any what, amendments are necessary to be 
made" to that act.^^ On January 29, 1813, this committee 
reported and recommended no alterations.^^ The problem sug- 
gested to the committee was to settle the doubts that some 
entertained as to whether Missouri's Territorial Delegate to 



"Am. State Papers, Misc., II. 202f; Scharf, op. cit., I. 557f. 

" Annals oj Congress, p. 618. 

" Ibid., pp. 929f; Am. State Papers, Misc., II. 201f. 



Constitutional History During Territorial Period. 35 

Congress, who had been elected on November 2, 1812, in pur- 
suance of the act of Congress of that year, could hold his seat 
after March 3, 1813. The committee decided that as he was 
elected for two years, he could hold his seat for that time, and 
that no alteration in the law of 1812 was necessary, as it appeared 
perfectly clear on this point. 

Population kept increasing rapidly in Missouri. Lawrence 
county was established by the Territorial Legislature January 
15, 1815,^* and just a little over a year later Howard county, the 
"mother of counties" and one of the empire counties of Missouri, 
was erected by act of January 23, 1816.*'^ On January 21, 1816, 
on motion of Mr. Easton in the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on the Judiciary was instructed to inquire if any, 
and what, alterations were necessary to be made in the act 
entitled "An act providing for the government of the Territory 
of Missouri" approved June 4, 1812." ^^ This committee on 
March 6, 1816, reported a bill to alter certain parts of the act 
of 1812, which without any amendment finally became the 
organic act of Congress of April 29, 1816, by which Missouri 
became a territory of the highest grade.^'' By this law, the 
elective tenure was also applied to the Legislative Council, one 
member being elected from each county. The term was reduced 
to two years and qualifications remained the same as in the act 
of 1812. A majority of the members constituted a quorum. 
The regular sessions of the General Assembly were changed 
from annual to biennial sessions. Everything else of the act 
of 1812 remained unchanged except the provisions relating to 
the judiciary. It was the provisions in this act of 1816 relating 
to the judiciary that was its most objectionable feature to Mis- 
sourians, as is expressly set forth in the very earliest petitions 
for statehood in 1817.'*^ The General Assembly was authorized 
to require the judges of the superior court to hold superior and 
circuit courts; to appoint the times and places for the same; 
and to make rules and regulations regarding these courts. The 



«« Mo. Ter. Laws, pp. 354ff. 

" Ibid., pp. 46011. 

«• Annals oj Congress, pp. 1047. 1049. 1358, 1362. 

«' Stat, at Large, II. 328; Mo. Ter. Laws, p. 14. 

•• This will receive further consideration in the chapter following. 



36 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

circuit court was to be composed of one of the said judges and 
to have jurisdiction in all criminal cases, exclusive original 
jurisdiction in capital cases, and original jurisdiction in all civil 
cases of $100.00 value or over. The superior and circuit courts 
were to possess chancery powers as well as common law juris- 
diction in all civil cases, provided that in matters of law and 
equity, in all cases, appeal lay from the circuit courts to the 
superior court of the territory. 

The year following this law of Congress of 1816, which 
made Missouri a territory of the highest rank, saw the inhabit- 
ants here petitioning Congress for that greatest of all boons — 
the privilege of statehood. It will be our purpose in the next 
chapter to give, in the first place, a short history of these efforts 
on the part of Missouri's pioneers to obtain permission of the 
National Legislature to frame a state constitution; and, in the 
second, to sketch the struggle in Congress itself over this ques- 
tion from 1818 to 1820. It is hardly an exaggeration to say 
that seldom in the history of this nation since the adoption of 
the Constitution has there been a purely domestic question, 
except of course the Civil War of 1861-65, that has so stirred the 
country from border to border; has been so ominous in so many 
of its phases; that for so many months literally shook the foun- 
dations of the United States and brought forth declarations 
and prophecies of the most calamitous character from the 
mouths and pens of men who even today rank foremost in the 
galaxy of American Statesmen and authors, as the famous 
Missouri Question. It will not, however, be our purpose in 
this book to do more than merely give a summary of that ques- 
tion as it was acted upon by Congress. 



CHAPTER 11. 

MISSOURI PETITIONS FOR STATEHOOD AND THE 
STRUGGLE IN CONGRESS 

The earliest agitation for the admission of Missouri as a 
State began in the latter part of 1817.^ After the war of 1812 
the population of Missouri grew rapidly, and corresponding 
with this growth the desire of the people for an independent 
State government became strong.^ In the fall of 1817 this 
desire for statehood found expression in a number of memorials 
addressed to Congress and signed by the Missouri inhabitants, 
acting purely in their capacity as citizens. It is certain that 
there were a number of these petitions; even today there are 
two in existence.^ 



' Scharf, op. cit., I. 561. In note one on this page appears the following 
extract from the Missouri Gazette (St. Louis) dated October 11, 1817: "We 
have seen in the last Emigrant the copy of a petition stated to be 'The Memorial 
of the Citizens of Missouri Territory,' praying to be admitted into the Union of 
States within certain limits." (Note: The Western Emigrant was a newspaper 
published in St. Louis in 1817, succeeding the Western Journal, which began 
publication in 1815. Later it changed its name again and became known as the 
St. Louis Enquirer.) 

There is no mention of a petition earlier than 1817 by any of the writers of 
Missoxu-i or of St. Louis history, such as Switzler, Davis and Diu-ie, Houck, Carr, 
Rader, Billon, and Scharf. Some of these failed to notice the memorials of 1817. 
but even Air. Houck, who made a special study of this period, gives the date of 
the earliest petition as 1817. 

Copies of Resolutions of the Mi-ssouri Territorial General Assembly to Con- 
gress, dated December 1815 and January 1816, are still in existence in the Bureau 
of Rolls and Library, Department of State, Washington, D. C, but Mr. Tonner, 
Chief of the Bureau, informs us that ho has examined these resolutions and that 
they do not refer to statehood, but to entirely different subjects. (Letter of Mr. 
J. A. Tonner, January 29, 1914, in The State Historical Society of Missouri.) 

Cf. also Parker, op. cit., p. 239. 

' Houck, Hist. Mo., III. 243. As our references to Houck will hereafter be 
entirely to his History of Missouri, wo will refer to that work thus: Houck, op. cit. 

During the war the tide of immigration into Missouri decreased in volume, 
but after peace was proclaimed, the rush of settlers from Kentucky, Tennessee, 
Virginia, and the Carolinas to that territory was greater than ever. (See Mis- 
souri Gazette, October 26, 1816.) 

• We are certain that a number of these memorials were identical, and were 
circulated over the entire territory. Internal criticism of these documents pro- 
duces several reasons which incline us to come to this conclusion: first, the two 
existing memorials of 1817 are so worded as to have allowed any citizen of Mis- 
souri to sign them, and consist of a comparatively brief printed petition with a 

(37) 



38 Missouri Struggle for Statehood, 

It is known that on January 8, 1818, the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives of Congress presented "petitions" 
from sundry inhabitants of Missouri Territory, praying that 
the said Territory might be erected into a State and admitted 
into the Union on an equal footing with the original States;^ 
that on February 2, 1818, John Scott, Missouri's Delegate to 
Congress, presented a similar petition from the inhabitants of 
Missouri Territory ;5 and on March 16, 1818, Scott again pre- 
sented "petitions" of sundry inhabitants of Missouri Territory, 
praying for admission, which, together with the "petitions" of 
a similar nature, "heretofore presented at the present session," 
were referred to a select committee composed of seven men, 
Scott being chairman.^ This committee, on April 3, 1818, re- 
ported to the House a bill to authorize the people of the Missouri 
Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for 
the admission of such State into the union, etc. This bill was 
read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole, where it 
lodged during that session of the Fifteenth Congress^ 

The two memorials of 1817 still in existence are valuable 
and interesting documents. The subject matter of the one in 
the Library of Congress is identical with the one in the library 
of The State Historical Society of Missouri, and is signed by 
sixty-eight persons, most of whom lived in Washington county, 
Missouri.^ Two of these sixty-eight names appear among the 
sixty-nine names attached to the other memorial. Among the 
former, appears the signature of John Rice Jones; on the other, 



small blank below for signatures (an additional sheet of paper covered with sig- 
natures is attached to the one in The State Historical Society of Missouri) ; second, 
on the back of the one in The State Historical Society of Missouri is written in 
script, "No. 5," and a little to the right of this is written, "69." The "No. 5" 
would perhaps have little significance if it were not for the "69." This memorial 
was signed by sixty-nine persons, and it is not improbable that this petition was 
the fifth in circulation. 

« Annals of Congress, I. 591. These were laid on the table. 

» Ibid., p. 840. This also was laid on the table. 

'Ibid., II. 1391. Mr. Scott also presented a petition of sundry inhabitants 
of the southern part of the Territory of Missouri, praying for a division of the 
said territory, which was referred to the same committee. Ibid., p. 1392. 

' Ibid., p. 1672. 

• Houck, op. cit.. III. 245. Mr. Farnum, Secretary to the Librarian of Con- 
gress, in a letter to the author dated January 23, 1914, stated that the one in that 
Library has sixty-eight manuscript signatures; Houck, idem, says sixty-seven. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 39 

appears that of John Hutchings. Both of these men were later 
delegates from Washington county to the first constitutional 
convention of 1820. The first eighteen signatures of the sixty- 
nine are included in an ink brace, and written on the margin 
of the page and within the brace are these words : "All the Grand 
Jury of the Circuit Court of Washington county October term, 
1817." The entire document contains about seven hundred 
and fifty words, and might naturally be divided into two parts. ^ 

First are set forth Missouri's reasons for statehood, in- 
cluding the following: (a) the population of Missouri had 
reached 40,000; Tennessee, Ohio and Mississippi had each been 
admitted with a smaller population; (b) the treaty of cession 
guaranteed statehood as soon as it could be "granted under the 
principles of the Federal Constitution;" (c) Missouri's training 
as a territory of the first and second class had covered a period 
of thirteen years ;^'^ (d) Missouri's loyalty to the Union had 
been evinced during the War of 1812; (e) the evils of the terri- 
torial government were many, including (1) the denial of a vote 
in Congress, although subject to the indirect taxation of that 
body, (2) the absolute veto of the governor on the acts of the 
territorial legislature, (3) the power of the superior court in 
having primary and final jurisdiction in most civil and criminal 
cases, and (4) the restricted powers of the territorial legislature 
which were confined to the passage of local laws, "owing to the 
paramount authority of Congress to legislate on the same sub- 
ject." 

Second are advanced arguments for the boundaries of Mis- 
souri, being the latitudes forty degrees and thirty-six degrees 
thirty minutes on the north and south, and the Mississippi 
River and the Osage boundary line on the east and west.^^ 
Two-thirds of the memorial is taken up with this subject of 
boundaries and includes the following arguments: (a) the north- 



• For a copy of the memorial in The State Historical Society of Missouri see 
Appendix I. 

'•Missouri had really passed through the three grades of territorial organi- 
zation, besides having been under a military government and also under the gov- 
ernment of Indiana Territory. 

" Houck, op. cit., I. 3. "The Osage boundary on the west was a line extending 
from Fort Osage north and south about twenty-four miles east of the mouth of 
the Kansas river." 



40 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

em boundary would then correspond with that of IlHnois terri- 
tory and "with the Indian boundary line near the mouth of the 
River Des Moines -/^ (b) the southern boundary would "be an 
extension of the line that divides Virginia and North Carolina, 
Tennessee and Kentucky;" (c) it would leave Arkansas territory 
a frontage of three and a half degrees on the Mississippi river, 
give Missouri a like frontage and a medium depth of two hun- 
dred miles, and leave the same front "embracing the great 
River St. Pierre" for a future State to the north of Missouri; 
(d) these boundaries would "include all the country to the 
north and west to which the Indian title" had been extinguished, 
and also include "the body of the population;" (e) they would 
"make the Missouri river the centre, and not the boundary of 
the State" and thus unite in one whole the district to the north 
and the south of that stream — a condition greatly desired by 
choice and made doubly expedient by natural location and the 
complementary resources of these two parts. 

For the first time there is set forth in this petition any 
intimation that the Missouri River had ever been thought of as 
the northern boundary line of Missouri. That this had already 
been rumoured, perhaps even advocated, is probable, judging 
from the serious elifort of this memorial to state the objections 
of the inhabitants of Missouri to this plan. It is evident that 
the memorialists feared Congress might select the Missouri river 
as a natural boundary for the State, so they added that they de- 
precated "the idea of making the divisions of the States to cor- 
respond with the natural divisions of the country" and said, 
"such divisions will tend to promote that tendency to separate, 
which it is the policy of the unjoii to counteract." It is also 
interesting to notice the desire of the memorialists to provide 
for Missouri a large frontage on the Mississippi River, and their 
implied fear of having a large tract of desert land attached to 
the new State, whereby a long State running east and west, but 
narrow from north to south, would be formed. 



" The memorial is uncertain in its statement of the northern boundary, 
since parallel forty degrees does not correspond to the Indian boundary line as 
sui-veyed by John C. Sullivan in 1816, and as later decided in the United States 
Supreme Coiu-t in 1849. Ibid., I. 14f. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 41 

We have already stated that little was accomplished re- 
garding a Missouri bill during the first session of the Fifteenth 
Congress. However, it was really a matter for congratulation 
that a Missouri statehood bill had been reported by a committee 
of Congress so shortly after Missouri had become a territory of 
the highest rank. This showed that the friends of Missouri 
who were in Congress would not allow this subject to be kept 
under cover. 

The year 1818 brought forth the only memorial to Congress 
praying for statehood that was ever adopted by the Territorial 
Legislature of Missouri. Although in 1817 there were a number 
of individual statehood petitions in circulation among the in- 
habitants in Missouri, there is no record of any in 1818, except the 
memorial passed by the last Territorial Legislature of Missouri, 
which adjourned in December of that year. During 1819 and 
1820, however, there were a very large number of these peti- 
tions and remonstrances to Congress drawn by grand juries, 
public meetings of citizens, and religious bodies in Missouri on 
the question of statehood, and especially showing the sentiment 
in Missouri at this time on the question of slavery and the 
action being taken by Congress. ^^ 

On November 13, 1818, the Territorial Legislature of Mis- 
souri adopted a memorial to Congress praying for statehood, 
and during the same month they adopted a resolution on the 
question of United States "donations and appropriations" 
advantageous to the inhabitants of this State. ^* 

The memorial set forth two main arguments for statehood : 
(1) that the population of the territory was nearly one hundred 
thousand; and (2) that the limits of the territory were too 
extensive for the efficient administration of government. Owing 



" These petitions of 1819 and 1820 being largely of the nature of protests 
form part of the subject matter of the two following chapters. 

" "Memorial and Resolutions of The Legislature of The Missouri Territory 
and A Copy Of The Census of the Fall of 1817: Amount to 19,218 Males — 
December 8, 1819. Referred to a Select Committee." One of the copies of 
these documents as printed in Washington, 1819, a six page pamphlet for the use 
of Congress, is in The State Historical Society of Missoiu-i, and another copy of 
the memorial may be found in the Am. State Papers, Misc., II. 557f. Another copy 
of the memorial is in Abridg. of Debates of Cong., VI. 381. Houck. op. oil.. III. 
245, gives the date of the adoption of the memorial as December, 1818; but 
there is no doubt that this is not correct. See Appendix II for copy. 



42 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

to both of these reasons, but especially the latter, it proposed a 
division of the territory. Before taking up the consideration of 
Missouri's population and the boundaries of the proposed 
state — a short but rather involved study of itself — the rest of 
the memorial will be analyzed. The memorialists stated that 
although there were many grievances of which they might 
complain, yet most of them were inseparable from a territorial 
government and were not enumerated. They closed this docu- 
ment by again referring to the question of population which, in 
the counties of New Madrid, Lawrence, Ste. Genevieve, Cape 
Girardeau, Washington, St. Louis, St. Charles, and Howard 
they stated was more than sufficient for admission as heretofore 
required of other states admitted. The guarantee of admission, 
as set forth in the treaty of cession, was mentioned, concerning 
which they said, "much might have been claimed, in justice," 
etc. The memorial was signed by David Barton, as "Speaker 
of the House of Representatives," its authenticity being attested 
by him, and was also signed by Benjamin Emmons, "President 
of the Legislative Council." 

It is difficult to determine the exact figure for the population 
of the entire Missouri Territory in 1818. Of course that given 
in the memorial, one hundred thousand, which was undoubtedly 
intended for the white and black population and excluding 
Indians, was too high. The increase in population had un- 
doubtedly been remarkable, but it had hardly been great 
enough to have warranted a jump from 19,976 in 1810 to this 
figure in 1818, a period of only eight years.^* The greatest 
increase had been in the Boone's Lick country which, in 1812, 
numbered only one hundred and fifty families,^® and in 1817 
contained 3,386 males. ^' The Territorial census which was 
taken in August and September of 1817, a copy of which was 
transmitted to Congress by Missouri's delegate, John Scott, 
gives the total white male population of the territory, exclusive 



■• U. S. Census, 1900. Pop. I. 27f. 

'• Perkins and Peck, Western Annals, p. 750. 

" Cf. Appendix II, wiiich contains copy of census of 1817, and also Billon, 
Annals of St. Louis, 1804-1821, p. 51. Billon makes the mistake of giving the 
population of Missouri Territory by counties for 1818, which should have been 
for 1817. The Item on Missouri's population which appeared In Niles' Register 
of May 16, 1818, is not trustworthy. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 43 

of Arkansas county, as 19,218. This would have made the 
total white population for that year, excluding Arkansas, 
between 35,000 and 38,000, which is probably nearly correct, 
as we know that from 1817 to 1820 the immigration into Mis- 
souri was very heav^^ and that the white population in 1820 
was 55,988.^* ^It is quite probable that in 1818 the white popu- 
lation of Missouri Territory excluding Arkansas county was be- 
tween 41,000 and 44,000, besides a slave population of over 
5,000.^* This was undoubtedly a sufficient population for 
statehood by comparison either with former states or even 
with some admitted years after this. 

The boundaries asked for Missouri in the legislature's memo- 
rial of 1818 included a far greater extent of territory than had 
been requested in the people's memorial of 1817, and embraced 
even a larger domain than lies within the present limits of this 
State. They included all the territory within the present State, 
except the two northwestern counties, Atchison and part of Holt; 
a large irregular portion of the northeastern corner of the present 
State of Arkansas, embracing over five thousand square miles; 
and a long narrow strip of land on the west, about two hundred 
miles long by sixty miles wide. If these boundaries had been 
accepted by Congress they would have enlarged the present 
State of Missouri from twenty-five to thirty per cent, or in round 
numbers, about twenty thousand square miles, and today Mis- 
souri would contain nearly ninety thousand square miles. 

The reasons advanced in the memorial of 1818 for asking 
Congress to set such large limits for Missouri were: that the 
fertile districts therein "susceptible of settlement, are small, 
and are separated and detached from each other, at great dis- 
tances, by immense plains and barren tracts, which must for 
ages remain waste and uninhabited;" that "these distant 



•» U. S. Census, 1850, p. 665. Cf. also Niks' Register, XIII. 166. That 
Missouri was being settled rapidly is shown by the fact that in December 1818, 
the Territorial Legislature organized eight counties: Jefferson, December 8th, 
(Mo. Ter. Laws, p. 554); Franklin and Wayne, December 11th, (Ibid., pp. 562f, 
567); Lincoln, Madison, Montgomery and Pike, December 14th, (Ibid., pp. 572, 
576, 580, 585); and Cooper, December 17th (Ibid., p. 594). The white males 
outnumbered the white females. 

'• U. S. Census, 18.50, p. 665. The free colored population of Missouri in 
1820 was 347 and the slave 10,222. 



44 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

frontier settlements, thus insulated, must ever be weak and 
powerless in themselves; and can only become important and 
respectable, by being united;" and that one of the objects of 
the memorialists "is the formation of an effectual barrier for 
the future against Indian excursions, by pushing forward, and 
fostering a strong settlement on the little river Platte, to the 
west, and on the Des Moines, to the north." 

The most significant feature of the Legislature's memorial 
of 1818 is the large boundary requested. Compared with the 
popular petitions of the previous year the limits of the proposed 
State had been extended on the north, west, and south. To 
ascertain the reasons for this enlarged boundary in the 1818 
petition, other than those reasons set forth in the memorial 
itself, is an interesting problem from an antiquarian point of 
view and an important one from its bearing on the history of 
several states. We believe this request was the result of two 
forces: (1) the general desire of the Legislature and the people 
of Missouri Territory, excluding the Arkansas country, for a 
large State; and (2) the special influence exerted by those indi- 
viduals and sections in Missouri Territory that had important 
interests at stake in such an extended boundary line. 

\The large northern boundary asked for, which would have 
included a portion of the southern part of the present State of 
Iowa, was very probably sought by the Legislature owing to a 
general desire for a large State, and not because there was any 
special demand on the part of any county or district in Missouri 
for this country./ In fact, it is very doubtful if the memorialists 
realized either tne vast extent or the richness of the soil of this 
northern country. The Legislature may also have been im- 
pelled to sanction this northern boundary in order thereby to 
have a State that was equally divided by the Missouri River. 
At least it is quite probable that the representatives from 
Howard and St. Charles county, as well as the inhabitants 
of the potential counties of Pike, Montgomery, and Lincoln 
which were erected into counties in December 1818, would 
favor this. 

The request for the country on the west, especially that 
part along the Missouri, Kansas, and Little Platte rivers, was 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle hi Congress. 45 

not such a haphazard demand, but rested on a sincere wish for, 
and a knowledge of, the section desired. It was undoubtedly 
well known that this land was very fertile and would soon be 
settled by the pioneers who w^ere ever pushing westward. The 
Indians then occupied it; and what more propitious time than 
this for expelling them could have been found? The demand 
for this country must have come largely from the Boone's Lick 
country, which had already been formed into one county and 
was soon to be broken up into many. I The great movement of 
immigration was along the Missouri River, and those who settled 
there saw clearly that population would continue to advance 
on and up that highway and its tributaries.1 In 1819 this demand 
of central Missouri, which will be considered below, is openly 
set forth in the Missouri Intelligencer. We can assign no reason 
for the Legislature's placing the western boundary so far west 
between the Kansas River and thirty-six degrees and thirty 
minutes north latitude, unless it was a desire for a straight line 
or a larger state; perhaps the members of that body reasoned 
that by making the line continuous they would obviate making 
so many explanations to Congress. The Legislature also 
probably foresaw that Missouri's Delegate in Congress would 
have to employ all his ability to gain the proposed boundary on 
the south, and did not wish to further embarrass him. 

I The boundary on the south, as set forth in the legislative 
peti'tion of 1818, began in the middle of the Mississippi River 
at the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude, thence in a straight 
southwestward line to the mouth of the Big Black River, then 
followed the White River to where the parallel of thirty-six 
degrees and thirty minutes north latitude crossed it, and then 
continued along that latitude to the west until intersected by 
the western boundary. i No reason was stated in the memorial 
for requesting this irregular southern boundary, and today it 
still remains a more or less unsolved problem. The question 
is in itself an interesting one and of much historical value apart 
from the fact that it was partly due to this demand of the 
Legislature and the influence of certain individuals that the 
lower part of New Madrid, most of Dunklin, and all of Pemiscot 
counties, are today within the limits of Missouri. For a com- 



46 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

prehension of this subject it is essential that a general survey 
of the boundaries and population of the southern counties of 
Missouri Territory be made. 

When Governor Howard, on October 1, 1812, issued his 
proclamation calling for an election of territorial representatives, 
he also, in pursuance of the Act of Congress of June 4, 1812, 
divided and set the boundaries of the former five districts, 
which he designated "counties." The county of New Madrid 
was composed of the country south of Cape Girardeau county, 
and extended to the very limits of the State of Louisiana.^^ 
On December 31, 1813, the Missouri Territorial Legislature 
created Arkansas county out of New Madrid. The line of 
division between the two began in the Mississippi River at 
island number nineteen, which is located nearly on the thirty- 
sixth degree of north latitude; thence it ran straight to the 
mouth of "Red River" (Little Red, which empties into the 
White River some miles below the mouth of Black River), 
and then up that stream to the Osage boundary line or an ex- 
tension thereof.21 On January 15, 1819, New Madrid county 
was further diminished in size by the erection of Lawrence 
county, which embraced practically that part of the former 
county which lay west of the St. Francois River.^^ As indic- 
ative of the increase in population, it might be noted that the 
southwestern part of Arkansas county was divided in December 
15, 1818, into three counties,^^ and that the United States 
census for Arkansas Territory in 1820 gives seven counties 
with a total population of 14,273.^* 

«» Scharf, op. cit., I. 557, M. 1. 

It might be noticed that prior to 1806, New Madrid district included the 
whole Arkansas country. On June 27, 1806, the territorial legislature of (upper) 
Louisiana cut off the southwestern part of the New Madrid district of Arkansas 
for judicial purposes. Cf. Mo. Ter. Laws, I. 68f. This act was. however, re- 
pealed on July 7, 1807, and the Arkansas country fell back under the jurisdiction 
of the New Madrid district. Cf. Ibid., pp. 178ff. 

" Ibid., pp. 293ff. Arkansas county embraced all the country in Missouri 
Territory south of that line. 

" Ibid., pp. 354ff. Lawrence county was also given an extension to the 
Arkansas river cut off from Ai-kansas county. 

"Ibid., pp. 589ff. 

" U. S. Census, 1900. Pop.. I. pp. lOf. In 1810 the population of Arkansas 
was 1,062; in 1820, 14,273, distributed as follows among seven counties: Ar- 
kansas (along the Mississippi River), 1260; Clark (central), 1,040; Hempstead 
(southwest), 2,248: Lawrence (north), 5,602; Miller (extreme southwest), 999; 
Phillips (east, along Mississippi river), 1,201; and Pulaski (central), 1,923. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 47 

There are several facts worth noting in this connection: 
1st, New Madrid county, after the erection of Arkansas county 
in 1813, contained from 1813 to 1815 practically all of Lawrence 
county; 2d, Lawrence county was probably a fairly populous 
county in 1818, and in 1820 contained over one-third of the total 
population of the Territory of Arkansas;" 3d, Arkansas county 
must have had a large population in 1818 or three new counties 
would not have been formed from it in that year, and two more 
between 1818 and 1820. With this summary of the historical 
and statistical data relating to the districts interested in the 
proposed southern boundary of Missouri as set forth in the 
1818 memorial, the reason for the Territorial Legislature re- 
questing such a boundary will now be taken up. 

It has been maintained by some writers on Missouri history 
that those members of the Missouri Territorial Legislature of 
1818 who represented the counties of New Madrid, Lawrence, 
and Arkansas, were the leaders in advocating this proposed 
southern boundary .^^ We do not believe this position is well 
taken in regard to the two last named counties, and we are 
even more convinced that the constituents of the representatives 
from Lawrence and Arkansas counties did not favor inclusion 
in the proposed State of Missouri. Some evidence, however, 
supports the former position; some opposes it. 

The foregoing historical sketch of New Madrid, Arkansas, 
and Lawrence counties shows the political relation between 
these districts, and hence between the Arkansas country and 
the Missouri country. There was also present to a certain 
extent the relationship of blood and of business interest; it 
should also be remembered that both New Madrid and Law- 
rence counties extended on both sides of parallel thirty-six 
degrees and thirty minutes. It is important to note that one 
of the trade outlets of the upper part of Lawrence county to 
the north and east was through Cape Girardeau and New 
Madrid counties. Furthermore, it would not seem strange 



" The territorial census of Missouri Territory taken in 1817 gave the following 
white male population to these counties: New Madrid, 669; Lawrence, 1,529; 
and Arkansas. 827. (Billon, op. cit.. 1804-21, p. 51. 

>• Cf. Houck. op. cit., I. pp. 4f. 



48 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

that at least some of the inhabitants of New Madrid and Law- 
rence counties should oppose having their counties divided and 
placed under two territorial or state governments. The most 
plausible evidence yet produced that the New Madrid county 
inhabitants and those of the northeastern part of Lawrence 
desired to be included in the new state, is the fact that during 
the summer of 1819 these counties, together with Ste. Genevieve, 
Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Cape Girardeau, and Wayne 
(the last named, a part of Lawrence and Cape Girardeau prior 
to December, 1818) petitioned Congress for their incorporation 
within the proposed State of Missouri and for the Missouri 
River as the northern boundary of that State," even though 
the national legislature had already passed an act, which went 
into force July 4, 1819, erecting the Territory of Arkansas and 
setting forth its boundaries. The northern boundary of Ar- 
kansas Territory, as set forth in that act, excluded that part of 
New Madrid county north of the thirty-sixth parallel, and in- 
cluded that part of Lawrence county south of thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes. This petition or petitions of 1819 should 
not be taken as proof conclusive of the sentiment of the people 
in these counties, as it is known that such eminent men as John 
Scott, David Barton, Ch. S. Hempstead, and John D. Cook 
declared that the people of Ste. Genevieve and Jefferson counties 
opposed it; John Rice Jones of Washington county said his 
people did not favor it; and a counter-petition to Congress of 
the inhabitants of Cape Girardeau county actually appeared.^* 
These arguments have in them something plausible; but a 
close examination shows them unsound. In the first place, 
political relationship between counties or between territories 



^'Jackson (Missouri) Herald, Sept. 11, 1819. 

'» Ibid., Aug. 23 to Sept. 18, 1819. 

It sliould be noticed that the northern boundary of Arkansas Territory, as 
set forth in tlie act of 1819, is practically the same as the present boundary, and 
included but a very little part of New Madrid county. The small part of New 
Madrid county that was included in Arisansas Territory by this act was a small 
triangular tract whose sides were: the St. Francois River on the west, the thirty- 
sixth parallel on the north, and on the south to the intersection on the St. Fran- 
cois River of a line drawn from a point in the Mississippi River, at about thirty- 
six degrees to the mouth of the Little Red River where it empties into the White 
River. This small tract could not have had a large population at that time, as 
all the rest of New Madrid county north of thirty-six degrees was still left in 
Missouri Territory. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 49 

is no proof of their desire for union. For example, there had 
been a close political bond between Indiana Territory and the 
Illinois country. Still, when population had increased the latter 
district wanted a separate territorial government of its own and 
pledged its delegates to this end, and this in the face of a strong 
opposition throughout the eastern Indiana country. In the 
second place, the ties of blood and interest which connected 
Lawrence and Arkansas counties with New Madrid and Cape 
Girardeau counties were no stronger than those uniting Lawrence 
county with Arkansas county, and it has never been maintained 
that the last named county desired incorporation in the proposed 
State of Missouri. In fact, the natural trade outlets for nearly 
all of Lawrence county lay to the south. The main highways of 
commerce were then the rivers, and especially was this true 
where the direction of the bulky trade was down-stream. New 
Orleans was the port of export for the surplus products both 
agricultural and mineral of the Mississippi Valley. The surplus 
products of Lawrence county could reach that city entirely by 
water, and be propelled by current the entire distance. The 
St. Francois, the Big Black, the White, the Little Red, the 
Arkansas, and the Mississippi rivers together with their branches 
made a network of water channels in this district. Their 
superiority over the land routes, which then passed through 
swamps and forests and over hills, is obvious. In 1818 Lawrence 
county faced south and it remained so till the arrival of the rail- 
roads. In the third place, while New Madrid and Lawrence 
counties extended on both sides of the thirty-six-thirty line 
and perhaps did not desire to be cut into two parts, this is not 
sufficient reason to justify our stating that each county there- 
fore had the same predilection as to its incorporation in either 
Missouri or Arkansas. We are quite convinced that the exact 
opposite of this is true. We believe that New Madrid county 
desired inclusion in Missouri; that Lawrence county desired 
inclusion in Arkansas. To us the most plausible proof, that has 
yet been brought to light, showing the desire of Lawrence 
county and, therefore, of her representatives for incorporation 
in the proposed State of Missouri, is the abortive Missouri- 
river-boundary petitions of 1819. These petitions will be taken 
M s— 4 



50 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

up again when we consider the memorials of that year, and we 
hope that the importance of the subject will plead our pardon 
for any repetitions that are made. 

Fortunately, not only do we know the general provisions 
of these Missouri-river-boundary petitions and the exact bound- 
aries set forth in them, but, what is still more important, we 
also have the most irrefutable evidence relating to their value 
and their influence both at home and abroad. These petitions, 
purporting to represent the wishes of the people of seven southern 
Missouri counties and of the county of Lawrence in Arkansas 
Territory, requested Congress to give the proposed State of 
Missouri the following boundaries: on the north, the Missouri 
River from its mouth to the mouth of the Kansas River and 
thence in a straight line west to the border of the United States; 
on the west, that part of the western boundary of the United 
States lying between the point of intersection on it of the pro- 
posed northern boundary of Missouri and the thirty-sixth 
parallel; on the south, east along the thirty-sixth parallel to its 
intersection with White River, thence down that river to the 
mouth of Big Black River, then east to the Mississippi River; 
and on the east, thence up the Mississippi River to the mouth 
of the Missouri River. The plan proposed was chimerical. It 
obtained the sanction of few if any leading politicians even in 
southern Missouri. It received the support of no Missouri 
newspaper and its provisions were preserved for posterity by 
its opponents. It was the most selfish, unpatriotic, and ill- 
timed movement in the early history of this State, and was 
then so regarded by Missourians. No class supported it except 
perhaps a few small politicians, who wanted an issue to embarrass 
their opponents and to advantage themselves by arousing sec- 
tional rivalry, and some large landowners, who through mis- 
directed patriotism and hope of gain were willing to sacrifice 
the northern Missouri settlements and thwart the wishes of 
the northern Arkansas people. As annalists, we regret the 
obscurity surrounding the promoters of this plan; as Missourians, 
we find consolation in this fact. Of the thousands of white 
male inhabitants in the counties from which these petitions 
issued, only five or six hundred signed them. It was this small 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 51 

number of signatures attached, so said Scott — Missouri's dele- 
gate to Congress — that prevented the proposition from causing 
great difficulty in Washington.-^ In short, the leaders of the 
entire movement kept themselves well hidden. It was un- 
popular from its inception, and even Cape Girardeau county, 
which would seem to have benefited most by such a plan, 
strenuously opposed it. There existed at this time a considerable 
amount of jealousy between the north Missouri country and the 
southeastern counties of this territory. This was, we believe, 
one of the mainsprings behind these petitions of 1819. It is 
to the enduring credit of the southeastern Missouri counties 
that their people and their leaders refused to be inveigled in 
such a scheme. The plan itself was absurd, considering it 
wholly from the southern boundary proposed. The establish- 
ment of Arkansas Territory several months prior to the appear- 
ance of these petitions, had settled the boundary line between 
that territory and Missouri. Practically all New Madrid 
county had been left in Missouri Territory; what little re- 
mained in Arkansas is not worth considering here. Lawrence 
county had, it is true, been bisected by parallel thirty-six de- 
grees and thirty minutes, but this was a half degree farther 
south than the Arkansas petition of 1818 had requested as the 
northern boundary of Arkansas Territory. We are even forced 
to conclude that these petitions of 1819 were as absurd as they 
were ill-timed, as selfish as they were abortive, and as unpopular 
as they were unpatriotic. 

On the other hand, there is conclusive evidence that Ar- 
kansas county did not favor such a dividing line as was proposed 
in the Legislature's memorial of 1818. Lying so far south that 
county certainly did not expect to be a part of Missouri. Be- 
sides, in the fall and winter of 1818-1819, there were in circula- 
tion several Arkansas petitions praying for a separate territorial 
government. One of these petitions, dated December (?) 1818, 
"by sundry inhabitants of Southern Missouri praying for a 
separate government as the Territory of Arkansas" is still in 



"St. Louis Enquirer, Aug. 2, 1820; Mo. Intelligencer, Aug. 12. 1820. 



52 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

I 
existence.^" The boundary requested in it on the north is as 
follows: "a line to be run due West from the Missippi [sic] 
river in the thirty-sixth parallel of north lat. to the river St. 
Francis — thence up the middle of the main channel of the said 
river St. Francis to the thirty-seventh parallel of north Lat. 
and thence due West to the Western boundary of United States 
Territory West of the Mississippi."^^ Why, then, should the 
Arkansas county and the Lawrence county members of the 
Missouri Territorial Legislature of 1818 favor an extended 
southern boundary for Missouri, thereby cutting down the area, 
and, what is still more important, reducing the population of 
Arkansas territory? And, furthermore, why would they desire 
to thwart the wishes of their constituents and vote contrary to 
the popular petitions of the Arkansas people in this respect? 
For purposes of territorial government, the population of the 
Arkansas country was at its greatest extent none too large, and 
the two counties of Lawrence and Arkansas contained what 
little population there was. It is hardly reasonable to think 
that the inhabitants of this district should desire the inclusion 
in Missouri of so many of their people, and still petition Con- 
gress for territorial government under which at no distant date, 
they would wield far greater influence in proportion to their 
numbers than under the towering State of Missouri. Instead 
of the delegates from Lawrence and Arkansas counties having 
favored this, it is almost certain that they opposed giving Mis- 
souri any of the Arkansas country south of thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes, and perhaps even south of thirty-seven 
degrees, except the narrow strip between the Mississippi and 
St. Francois rivers to parallel thirty-six degrees. An article 
in the Missouri Intelligencer, dated December 31, 1819, serves 



»• Found in House Files. Referred Jan. 21, 1819. Listed in Parker, op. 
cit.. No. 272. The northern boundary clause was copied for us by Dr. N. D. 
Merenlss. 

•' At the same time another petition relating to the seat of government of 
the proposed Territory of Arkansas was presented to Congress by the Inhabitants 
of Arkansas county. Ibid., No. 271. Copy in The State Hist. Soc. of Mo. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 53 

to clear up much of this mistaken conception .^^ The following 
is taken from the article and explains itself: 

"It is a well known fact that if Arkansas could have had, at the last session, 
the number of representatives her population entitled her to have, that Congress 
would have been petitioned to divide the two territories by a line running west 
from the mouth of the Ohio. A large minority of the House of Representatives 
were in favor of such a division, and hoped that some member of Congress would 
at least enquire why the southern limit should be so crooked. The pretended 
reason given for it at St. Louis was so frivolous that it would have influenced 
nobody in Congress." A part of the county of New Madrid, about fifteen miles 
from east to west, and about thirty miles from north to south, lying between 
the river St. Francois and the Mississippi was cut off from the center of the county, 
now territory of Arkansas by an impassable marsh, over which, by the way many 
travellers have passed, and therefore the line must begin at thirty-six degree 
of latitute on the Mississippi, and run west to the St. Francois, thence up the 
St. Francois to 36 30 N. latitude." 

It is certain that the Arkansas country, including the 
entire counties of Lawrence and Arkansas but excluding New 
Madrid county, had far fewer representatives in the lower house 
of the territorial legislature than her population entitled her to 
have.^* That the omission of the population of Arkansas county 



•• The article is on "Missouri State Limits" and is found in the editorial 
column thus showing its importance. It is an ably written piece, and is signed 
by "A Citizen." As the date indicates, this was written while the Missoxu-i 
Question still hung in the balance, but after Arkansas had become a territory 
of the lowest grade by act of Congress of March 2, 1819, which went into effect 
July 4, 1819. (Stat, at Large, III. 493). The northern boundary of Arkansas 
as set forth in that act was as follows: Starting on the Mississippi River on the 
thirty-.sixth parallel, thence along this parallel to the St. Francois River, up that 
River to thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, and thence west along that par- 
allel, i. e., the same as the present southern boundary of Missouri. 

" The following is the reason given at St. Louis. 

'* The total population of Arkansas Territory in 1820 was 14,273 and that 
of Wayne county, Missouri, part of which had been taken from Lawrence county^ — , 
1,443. Of the former 7,290 were free white males; of the latter 779 were free 
white males. The white male population of Arkansas and Lawrence counties in 
1817, on which was based the apportionment of representatives to the terri- 
torial legislature of 1818, was 2,356 — giving these two counties only four repre- 
sentatives. (Billon, op. cit., 1804-1820, p. 51). It also seems very strange that 
in the copy of the census of Missouri Territory taken in 1817, which was trans- 
mitted to Congress by Missouri's Delegate, John Scott, there is given no census 
for Arkansas county and is marked simply "no return" and "1" representative. 
One is forced to the conclusion that the territorial census of 1817, as given in the 
documents accompanying the Missouri Legislature's memorial of 1818, was too 
low for Lawrence county and was deliberately omitted as regards Arkansas 
county, hence the small representation of those counties in the territorial legis- 
lature of 1818. These two counties should have had at least seven or eight 
representatives in the Missouri Territorial Leglslatiu-o of 1818, and it is quite 
probable that their white male population warranted tlieir having nine or ten 
representatives. (I/. S. Census 1830, Schedule 1790-1820, pp. 23, 25; C/. also 
supra m. 30.) 



54 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

from the state census of 1817 was deliberate; and, that the 
census of the population of Lawrence county was too low, also 
appears from the number of petitions from the Arkansas country 
that were presented to Congress in 1818-19.'' We shall now 
conclude this somewhat extended discussion by stating our 
conclusions. We believe that the inhabitants and representa- 
tives of that part of Lawrence county lying south of thirty-six 
degrees and thirty minutes, perhaps south of even parallel 



" On December 16, 1818, Mr. Robertson of Kentucky offered for considera- 
tion the following resolution: Resolved, Tliat a committee be appointed to in- 
quire into the expediency of establisliing a separate territorial government in 
that part of the new Territory of Missouri, lying south of tliirty-six degrees and 
thirty minutes north latitude, which is called the Arkansas country, and which 
is not Included in the proposed boimdaries of the projected State of Missouri, 
by the bill now before the house, for the purpose of establishing a State govern- 
ment in part of the Territory of Missouri, and that the said committee have 
leave to report by bill or otherwise." This resolution was adopted. Mr. Robert- 
son, in support of the resolution, said that the Arkansas country was a large terri- 
tory and should have a separate territorial government even if Missom-i was not 
admitted then. 

Mr. Scott of Missouri supported the resolution, but rather hedged in his 
speech. He said he was waiting a memorial for statehood from the Missouri 
Territorial Legislature and a copy of the census, etc. He also remarked that 
he had intended introducing a similar resolution as soon as the Legislature's 
memorial had arrived. He explained that he had not done this beforeliand be- 
cause he did not have full data, etc. However, he thought the population justi- 
fied a separate territorial government. {Abridg. Debates of Congress, VI. 222. 
Annals o) Congress, I. 413f.) 

It seems rather strange that the Arkansas question was first brought forward 
in Congress by a representative from Kentucky, and not by Missouri's Territorial 
Delegate There was perhaps a lack of confidence in Scott on the part of the 
Arkansas people, and they probably doubted if he would urge thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes as the dividing line, knowing already that the Missoiu"i Ter- 
ritorial Legislatvu-e was asking or had asked for, territory below that parallel 
for the future State of Missouri. 

On December 21, 1818, House Bill No. 238 was reported "establishing a 
separate territorial government in the southern part of Missouri." This passed 
the House February 20, 1S19 and was read in the Senate February 22, 1819. 
(Parker, op. cit., p. 27. Found in House Library and House Files, Fifteenth 
Congress.) This bill finally passed and became a law March 2, 1819, going into 
effect July 4, 1819. It set the northern boimdary of Arkansas Territory the same 
as it is today, i. e., it excluded the New Madrid .strip and followed parallel thirty- 
six degrees and thirty minutes. If there had beou a very pressing demand on the 
part of the inhabitants of Lawrence county along the Black River and the left 
bank of the White River for inclusion in Missouri State, it is hard to see why 
these people together with Scott could not have obtained it as easily as the New 
Madrid people did. (Annals of Congress, III. 252f., 272ff; IV. 1222-1235, 1273f., 
1283.) 

On January 30, 1819, Scott presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the 
Arkansas country, praying that a separate territorial government be established 
for them. This is the last petition of its kind of which there is any record and the 
only one presented by Scott. (Ibid., I. 911.) 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 55 

thirty-seven, and that the people and representatives of Ar- 
kansas county, did not favor inclusion in the new State of Mis- 
souri. It seems certain, on the other hand, that the people of 
the New Madrid strip south of thirty-six degrees and thirty 
minutes did have a sincere desire to be attached to this State.^* 
The inclusion in the legislature's petition of 1818 of that part 
of Lawrence county that lay south of parallel thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes was, we believe, the work of several in- 
fluential landowners and politicians of southeastern Missouri, 
aided, perhaps, by a few similarly interested men in Lawrence 
county .^^ This concludes our discussion of the legislature's 
memorial of 1818. 
/ On December 18, 1818, the Speaker of the House of Repre- 
I sentatives of the United States presented to that body the 
Missouri legislative memorial.^^ On February 13, 1819, the 
Missouri bill was taken up in the Committee of the Whole and 
was discussed. It was on this day that Talmadge proposed 
an amendment, limiting slavery in Missouri State by declaring 
free all negroes born in that territory after its admission, and 
by providing for the gradual emancipation of those who were 
then slaves. The Annals correctly state that: "This motion 
gave rise to an interesting and pretty wide debate." ^^ Two 
days later, Talmadge proposed his famous amendment to the 
Missouri bill by prohibiting the further introduction of slavery 



»• Houck, op. cit., I. 6f., says that "to J. Hardeman Walker," a large land- 
owner near the old village of Little Prairie (close to the present town of Caruthers- 
viUe), "we owe it that the additional territory now embraced in the limits of 
Pemiscot county, and most of that within the counties of Dunklin and New 
Madrid, was added to the new State." Walker was an "energetic, public spirited" 
citizen of Missouri in 1818; his plantation lay south of thirty-six degrees and thirty 
minutes. He made a vigorous effort both at home and perhaps outside the State 
to have the New Madrid strip included in the State. It is very probable that 
Scott and the politicians at Jackson, Missouri, such as Alexander Buckner, Gen- 
eral James Evans, Judge Richard S. Thomas and others there were also quite 
influential. Jackson, IMissouri, was then "the great business and political center 
of the territory south of St. Louis," and would naturally lend its greatest support 
to this plan. 

" Mr. Houck, in a letter to the author, dated January 29, 1914, states that 
the inhabitants of that part of Lawrence county south of parallel thirty-six de- 
grees and thirty minutes to the mouth of the Black river, and east of the White 
river, probably lacked a leader in pushing forward their desire for inclusion in 
Missouri, and hence were imsuccessful. 

"Annals of Congress, III. 408. 

'» Ibid., p. 1166. 



56 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

in Missouri and by providing that all children born in Missouri 
after her admission were to be free at the age of twenty-five 
years. A long debate followed which covers twenty-three 
pages of the Proceedings. The amendment passed in the 
Committee of the Whole by a vote of seventy-nine to sixty- 
seven.^" On the 17th of February the House passed the Mis- 
souri bill with the Talmadge amendment,^\and the Senate was 
informed to that effect.xThe House bill was immediately 
considered by the latter body, and after a second reading was 
referred to the committee in charge of the memorial of the 
territorial legislature of Alabama.^^ This committee, on the 
twenty-second, reported the Missouri bill with an amendment. 
The amendment recommended was to strike out the Talmadge 
amendment of the House.'*^ On the twenty-seventh, after a 
long and animated debate, the Senate by a strong majority 
followed the recommendation of its committee in this respect,*^ 
and on March 2d, the Missouri bill, with the Senate amendment, 



*' Ibid., pp. 1170-1193. Prof. Woodburn, in his article on The Historical 
Significance of the Missouri Compromise" {Annual Report of the American His- 
torical Association, 1893, pp. 253ff.), says that neither of these propositions of 
the Talmadge Amendment "proposed to interfere with the rights of property 
in the Territory," but that these restrictions of slavery appeared to the inhab- 
itants of Missouri and Arkansas not as restrictions but as abolition, in view of 
the thu'd article of the treaty of cession. If Professor Woodburn had lived in 
Missouri at that time, and had been an owner of slaves, he would very probably 
have appreciated and accepted the Missouri interpretation of this amendment. 
Whether the Talmadge amendment proposed the aboUtion or the restriction of 
slavery is of little consequence, but it is important to know that its application 
and enforcement in Missouri would have meant the death of that institution in 
the proposed state. It may be of interest to note that the Annals speak of the 
Talmadge amendment as prohibiting slavery in the new State. Cf. Annals of 
Congress, III. 251. 

" Ibid., pp. 1194-1216. On the sixteenth the House took up the consideration 
of the Missouri question and the Talmadge amendment, and a debate followed 
which covers twenty pages of the Annals. The first part of the amendment 
prohibiting the further introduction of slavery in Missouri was passed by a vote 
of eighty-seven to seventy-six. The slave children part of the amendment passed 
by the narrow vote of eighty-two to seventy-eight. The vote for ordering the 
amended bill engrossed for a third reading was ninety-seven to fifty-six. 

For passage of the bill see Ibid., IV. 1218. 

"Ibid., III. 238. 

" Ibid., p. 351. 

" Ibid., pp. 272f. A motion was made to postpone the consideration of the 
bill to a day beyond the session. This was negatived by a vote of fourteen to 
twenty-three. That part of the slavery restriction regarding negro children was 
stricken out by a vote of thirty-one to seven, and the other part by a vote of 
twenty-two to sixteen. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 57 

was passed by the upper body.''^ The House, by a narrow vote, 
refused to concur with the Senate in its amendment,^® and the 
Senate adhering to its position to strike out the slavery restric- 
tion clause,*^ the House agreed to adhere to its position ,^^ and 
the Missouri bill was lost for that Congress. One thing regard- 
ing Missouri had been settled, and that was her southern bound- 
ary, as the act of Congress pro\dding for a territorial govern- 
ment in Arkansas had set the northern boundary of that dis- 
trict. The boundary of the proposed new State of Missouri 
on the north and west was still left to absorb the attention of 
the inhabitants of Missouri Territory, and curiously enough, in 
spite of the Arkansas act, they also brought forward the ques- 
tion of the southern boundary. _^ 

It was during the summer and fall of 1819 that petitions 
and resolutions relating solely to this boundary question first 
made their appearance in Missouri. It was a matter of the 
greatest importance at that time, and the newspapers both 
north and south of the Missouri river show clearly the concern 
of all over it. On Monday, July 5, 1819, at a large gathering of 
citizens at Franklin, Howard county, Missouri, a resolution was 
adopted "That, in the opinion of this meeting, the Missouri 
river ought to divide equally the State of Missouri; and that 
the western boundary ought to extend at least fifty miles beyond 
the mouth of the Kansas river, without prejudice from the 
remote angular point made by New Madrid County." ^^ This 
resolution was only another way of expressing the wishes of the 
inhabitants of at least the western part of Missouri Territory 
for the land along the Missouri, the Kansas, and the Little 
Platte rivers. The first expression of this wish is found in the 
Legislature's memorial of 1818, and in all probability its strongest 
advocates were the representatives from the Boone's Lick 
country, although it must also have had the support of a majority 
of the Missouri people. The Missouri Intelligencer of 1819- 



" Ibid., pp. 275. 279. 
>*Jbid., IV. 1433ff. 
«' Ibid.. III. 282. 
''Ibid.. IV. pp. 1436ff, 

" Alissouri IntelUgencer, July 9, 1819; this resolution was also noticed in the 
Jackson (Missouri) Herald of September 4, 1819. 



58 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

1820 had several valuable articles on this subject. One of 
special worth appeared on December 31, 1819. In it a request 
was made that Congress allow the western boundary to take 
in the "headwaters of the Little Platte" "to the mouth of 
Wolfe river." A remarkable prophecy was made by the writer 
when he said: "It is impossible for our government to keep 
our frontier settlers from crossing the western Indian line to 
the fertile lands of the Little Platte. These lands must be 
purchased in a short time, and if annexed to our State would 
save Congress the expense of a territorial government for a 
long time — perhaps for one hundred years." This was what 
actually took place, and in 1836 the Platte Purchase gave to 
Missouri what her inhabitants in 1819 saw so clearly must 
finally be either a part of this state or a territory.^" Similar 
articles appear during January, 1820, on this point. In Feb- 
ruary, 1820, when the first draft of the Missouri Bill was printed 
in the Missouri Intelligencer, the boundaries were the same as 
were set forth in the Enabling Act. However, it was reported 
that: "It is the intention of Mr. Scott to introduce several 
amendments, so as to make it correspond with the Legislative 
memorial as far as possible." '-'^ Missouri failed to obtain the 
Little Platte country at this time, but her inhabitants won it 
for her during the next sixteen years, and legal title was vested 
by Act of Congress in 1836. 

During this summer, probably in July or August, 1819, the 
first and only Missouri-river-boundary petitions appeared. 
They had their origin in southern Missouri and in northeastern 
Arkansas and purported to be petitions of the inhabitants of 
the counties of Ste. Genevieve, Madison, Washington, Jefferson, 
Wayne, Cape Girardeau, Lawrence, and New Madrid. How- 
ever, prominent men of Ste. Genevieve, Jefferson, Washington 
and Cape Girardeau counties protested in letters to the Jackson 
(Missouri) Herald that the inhabitants of these four counties 



•"IMd.. Dec. 31, 1819. The article is signed, "Citizen." The writer did 
not think that the wishes of Howard and Cooper counties in this respect would 
be well attended to by Scott. See also, Missouri Intelligencer, Jan. 7, 1820, an 
article by "Cato;" Jan. 28, 1820, an editorial against a RlisBOuri-river-boiindary 
line. 

•' Ibid.. Feb. 4, 1820. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 59 

did not favor these petitions; and a counter-petition to Con- 
gress actually appeared in Cape Girardeau county opposing 
the division of the Territory of Missouri .'^ 

It has been quite plausibly maintained by some, that these 
Missouri-River-boundary petitions made their appearance in 
1818; that they originated in the dissatisfaction of many resi- 
dents who did not favor the boundaries set forth in the popular 
petitions of 1817; and that they serve to explain the ragged 
southern boundary clause requested for Missouri in the memorial 
of the Missouri Territorial Legislature of 1818." We cannot 
understand how such propositions could have obtained credence. 
It is obvious that the primary subject of consideration here is 
the question of dates. If the formerly accepted chronology' is 
wrong, the whole argument is of no value. If the Missouri- 
River-boundary petitions did not appear until 1819, they could 
not have exercised an influence on the 1818 petition. We take 
pleasure in handling this matter; in correcting so important an 
error. The fact is, as far as we can gather from the records 
preserved of that day, no Missouri-River-boundary petition 
appeared until July or August of 1819.^^ No newspaper in 
Missouri Territory mentions such a petition until 1819; nor is 
there any item on this subject in Niles' Register prior to 1819. 
We regard this silence of these publications in 1818 as con- 
clusive evidence that no Missouri-River-boundary petition 
appeared in that year. It is certain that such a boundary line 
would have attracted attention in 1818, as is evidenced in the 



•» Annals of Conoress, Sixteenth Congress, first session, I. 800. For these 
Missouri-river-boundary petitions, tlie counter-petition, letters of John Scott, 
John D. Cook, John Rice Jones, D. Barton and Ch. S. Hempstead, see Jackson 
(Missoxiri) Herald, Aug. — Sept., 1819. 

"Cf.. e. g., Houck, op. cit., I. 3f. 

"The statements in Houck, op. cit., I. 3f., regarding these petitions are in- 
accurate. This is due to a confusion of dates. For example, in giving authority 
for the statement that these Missouri-River-boundary petitions appeared in the 
early part of 1818 or at the close of 1817, reference Is made to Niles' Register 
[Sic, 17 Niles' Register, p. 175]. When we consulted this reference it was found 
under date of November 13, 1819. Again, it is stated in the work imder dis- 
cussion, that the St. Louis Enquirer objected to the Missouri-River-boundary 
petition of 1818. On investigating we found that this objection did not appear in 
that paper until December 1, 1819, and that it was then directed against the 1819 
petitions. Cf. Billon, op. cit., 1804-1821. p. 105; Scharf, op. cit.. I. 905; and also 
Houck. op. cit.. III. 65f. 



60 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Washington, D. C, the Jackson, the St Louis, and the Franklin, 
Missouri, newspapers of 1819, when such a proposal was actually 
made in the petitions of that year.*^ Furthermore, the Annals 
of Congress made no mention of such a petition being presented 
to Congress during 1818; while they did record the petitions of 
1819.5« 

The Missouri-River-boundary petitions stated that the 
Missouri River should form the boundary between two states 
and not be the dividing line of a state. The boundaries asked 
for Missouri were: The Missouri river from its mouth to the 
mouth of the Kansas river, thence west to the western boundary 
of the country, thence south along the far western boundary to 
the thirty-sixth parallel, thence east to the White River, and 
down that river to the mouth of the "Big Black river," thence 
east to the Mississippi River, thence up the latter river to the 
mouth of the Missouri River. There were several of these 
petitions in circulation, as the Annals state that on December 
18, 1819, the Speaker of the House presented "petitions," which, 
judging from the order of arrangement of the names of the 
counties from which they came," were undoubtedly the same 
as the above. 

The question naturally arises whether these petitions re- 
ceived any considerable support in either Missouri or Arkansas 
Territory. As this has already been discussed we will make 
only a few additional remarks. These petitions did not have 
the support of many followers either in Arkansas Territory or 
in Missouri. If prominent and influential men in the last 
Territorial Legislature did in 1818 favor the inclusion of north- 
eastern Arkansas, they probably saw in 1819 that further effort 
in this line was futile. Missouri had been given her southern 
boundary when Arkansas Territory was organized July 4, 1819. 

» C/. Niks' Register, XVII. 175 (Nov. 13, 1819): St. Louis Enquirer, Dec. 1. 
1819; Missouri Intelligencer, Dec. 17, 1819; Jackson (Missouri) Herald. Aug. — 
Sept., 1819. 

••I. 800, (Dec. 28, 1819.) The petitions presented to Congress on March 
16, 1818, cannot by the widest interpretation be construed to have been Missouri- 
River-boundary petitions. (Cf. Annals of Congress, II. 1391f.) Most of them 
were probably the popular petitions of 1817, and some were probably petitions 
from the Arkansas country praying for a separate territorial government. 

•' Ibid., I. 800. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 61 

The New Madrid strip had been left to Missouri; Arkansas 
had been given no more than justly belonged to her. The 
boundaries proposed in the petitions were too fanciful ever to 
have succeeded even under more favorable surroundings. From 
all that we can learn, the plan was put on foot and carried out 
with the greatest secrecy. The opposition to it in the only 
newspaper published in south Missouri was bitter and un- 
reserved. It was probably as decisively opposed in Arkansas 
Territory. At all events it did not obtain a hearty welcome 
anywhere and instead of being endorsed by a thousand males 
in Lawrence county alone, it received a total of but five or six 
hundred signatures in the eight counties of Ste. Genevieve, 
Madison, Washington, Jeflferson, Wayne, Cape Girardeau, 
Lawrence, and New Madrid. 

Scott, in a letter dated August, 1820, to the people of Mis- 
souri announcing his candidacy for representative to Congress, 
states that these Missouri-River-boundary petitions caused 
him trouble in Congress but that they were put aside owing 
to "The comparatively small number of the whole mass of the 
people who signed those petitions, being only between five and 
six hundred signers, the obvious bad policy of the measure, and 
the dangers of delay, which our friends evidently saw must 
result from such a division" etc., etc.^^ The articles and edi- 
torials in the Missouri newspapers of that day sustain Scott in 
this respect. None of these publications favored these petitions, 
and all were quite pronounced in their opposition to them. The 
St. Louis Enquirer of December 1, 1819, was outspoken against 
the petitions; and said that, after a few miles of woodland on 
the principal rivers, there appear the "naked and arid plains." ^^ 
This paper adds that: "The petition, as might be readily 
supposed, meets, among the people of the territory with a very 
few friends."^" The National Intelligencer of Washington, D. 
C, did not think it would be successful, although it rather ap- 
proved the proposition of a series of long, narrow states west of 



•• St. Louis Enquirer, Aug. 2, 1820; Missouri Intelligencer, Aug. 12, 1820. 
•• Missouri Intelligencer, Dec. 17. 1819. An article by "An Observer." 
'• Ibid., Dec. 17, 1819. Taken from the National Intelligencer. 



62 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

the Mississippi River, similar to Tennessee.®^ The Missouri 
Intelligencer vigorously opposed the petition and suggested that 
the southern boundary of Missouri be a line running west from 
the mouth of the Ohio river, and that the State be so enlarged 
as to make the Missouri River the actual center of it.^^ The 
Jackson Herald was as bitter as the Missouri Intelligencer in 
its attack on these petitions. Although this subject has a 
special attraction to us, it will now be necessary to consider the 
fight in Congress over the Missouri question during the first 
session of the sixteenth Congress, which finally resulted in the 
passage of an Enabling Act. 

On December 8, 1819, Scott introduced in the House the 
memorial of the Territorial Legislature and those of the in- 
habitants of Missouri, praying for statehood, which had been 
presented to the House at the last session of Congress. ^^ These 
were referred to a committee of five, of which Scott was chair- 
man. A Missouri bill was reported from this committee the 
following day, and from that time to the end of December, it 
was under discussion.^'* It is important to notice that on De- 
cember 30th, when the Maine statehood bill was taken up, 
Clay, in a speech, sought to connect the Missouri proposition 
with it. The Maine bill passed the House on January 3, 1820, 
and was sent to the Senate." 

The Senate had already received the Missouri Legislature's 
memorial ,^^ and the Judiciary Committee to whom it had re- 
ferred the Maine bill reported that bill with an amendment, 
which was the Missouri bill without restrictions. On January 
13, 1820, the Senate took up this Maine-Missouri bill as re- 
ported, and an effort was made to separate the two. This at- 
tempt at a separation of the two bills was lost by a vote of 
twenty- five to eighteen.^^ On the seventeenth an amendment 



•' Ibid., Dec. 17, 1819. This paper, i. e.. the National Intelligencer, said that 
it was unfair to give three states a frontage on the Mississippi river, and all the 
States west of these to have no frontage, besides being both "feeble and remote, 
with a foreign nation on their confines." 

" Ibid., Dec. 31. 1819. 
^ •» Annuls of Congress, I. 704. 

*>Ibid., pp. 711, 732. 7343., SOlff. 

«» Ibid., pp. 831-44. 848f. 

"Ibid., pp. 42f.. 73f. 

•' Ibid., pp. 85-99. 101-118. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 63 

was offered by Edwards to exclude slavery from the other 
territory of the United States, but this amendment was with- 
drawn.®^ On the same day Roberts offered an amendment to 
the Missouri amendment to the Maine bill, excluding the 
further introduction of slavery into Missouri.*"^ An animated 
debate took place in the Senate following this. The next day, 
Thomas introduced a bill, which later became the basis of the 
First Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in all 
the territory of the United States north and west of the pro- 
posed State of Missouri; the line of demarcation on the south 
being thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes. ''° The entire 
Missouri question was before the Senate during the re- 
mainder of January, and the discussion in the Senate at this 
time covers two hundred pages of the Annals.''^ On February 
first, a vote was taken on Roberts' amendment and it lost by 
a large majority.''^ On the third, Thomas of Illinois offered an 
amendment to the Missouri bill, prohibiting slavery in all the 
Louisiana Purchase north of thirty-six degrees and thirty min- 
utes, except in the proposed State of Missouri. This was the 
First Missouri Compromise as finally adopted. ^^ Thomas later 
withdrew his amendment, and the debate continued beyond the 
middle of the month.'''' On the sixteenth, the Maine-Missouri 
bill was adopted by a vote of twenty-three to twenty-one. 
Thomas then proposed his thirty-six degrees and thirty minute 
amendment, and several attempts at changing it were voted 
down." On the seventeenth, the Thomas amendment passed 
by a vote of thirty-four to ten, and on the eighteenth the 
Maine-Missouri bill, with this amendment, passed the Senate.^® 
In the meantime, the House had had the Missouri Question 
under consideration. On December 28th, the petitions of the 



•' Ibid., p. 119. 
"Ibid., pp. 119-156. 
''Ibid., pp. 157f. 
" Ibid., pp. 159-359. 
" Ibid., p. 359. 

'• Ibid., p. 363; CJ. also pp. 360f. 

'« Ibid., p. 367, On February 7th, Thomas withdrew his amendment. See 
also pp. 374-417. 

»/6id.. pp. 418-424. 
''Ibid., p. 430. 



64 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

eight Missouri- Arkansas counties had been presented to that 
body, and on January third, Scott presented a petition and re- 
monstrance of the Baptist Association of Mt. Zion, Howard 
county, Missouri Territory, protesting against the interference 
of Congress in the provisions of the constitution contemplated 
for Missouri upon its admission into the Union, and also against 
any restrictions on the rights of property.''^ It was on January 
24th that the House took up in earnest the Missouri Question; 
and until February 19th, this was the single great subject under 
consideration.'^ On the latter day the Maine-Missouri bill of 
the Senate was taken up, and on the twenty-third the House, 
by a vote of ninety-three to seventy-two, "disagreed" to having 
the Missouri bill attached to the Maine bill, and then by a large 
vote further "disagreed" to all amendments of the Senate to 
the Maine bill.'^ The Missouri bill was taken up on the latter 
day and was discussed until the twenty-eighth, when the Senate 
informed the House that they insisted on their amendment to 
the Maine bill. It should be noticed that on the 26th Storrs 
of New York proposed an amendment to the Missouri bill which 
was practically the same as Thomas's amendment in the Senate. 
The House, on receipt of the Senate's message, insisted by 
a vote of ninety-seven to seventy-six on "disagreeing" to the 
first eight sections of the Senate's amendment (the Missouri 
bill) to the Maine bill, and also by a vote of one hundred and 
sixty to fourteen disagreed to the Thomas amendment. ^° The 
Senate then asked the House to appoint a committee to meet 
with one they had appointed for a discussion in joint conference 
of the differences over the Maine-Missouri bill. On the same 
day the House negatived Storrs's amendment. On the day 
following, the House agreed to the conference asked by the 
Senate, and appointed five of its members to represent it. 
After discussing the Missouri bill, the House passed a slavery 
restriction amendment to it by a vote of ninety-four to eighty-six, 
and the bill, by a vote of ninety- three to eighty- four, was or- 



" Ibid., pp. 800. 848. 

"IMd.. pp. 937f.. 940-947. 949-1042. 1046, 1064, 1069-1130, 1138-1170. 
1172-1289, (II), 1291-1329, 1333-1403. 1405. 
'»/Md., II. 1405-10, 1412-50, 1453-57. 
"Ibid., pp. 1652-57. See also pp. 1457-1463. 1466-89, 1491-1541. 1552-55. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 65 

dered engrossed for the third reading. ^^ On March first, the 
Missouri bill, with its slavery restriction amendment, passed 
the House by a vote of ninety-one to eighty-two, and was sent 
to the Senate.^- When the separate Missouri House bill, pro- 
hibiting the further introduction of slavery in Missouri, reached 
the Senate on the second, that body at once proceeded to vote 
out the restriction and insert the Thomas amendment, and 
send it back to the House. *^ On this day, Holmes, chairman 
of the House committee in the Joint Conference, reported three 
recommendations: 1st that the Maine-Missouri bill be sep- 
arated and pass as separate bills; 2d that the slavery restriction 
in the Missouri bill be stricken out; and 3d that the Thomas 
amendment be inserted in the Missouri bill. The House then 
struck out the slavery restriction by a vote of ninety to eighty- 
seven; inserted the Thomas amendment by a vote of one hun- 
dred thirty-four to forty-two; and passed the Missouri bill in 
this form,^^ 

This ended the first Missouri fight in Congress, which had 
continued for two sessions of that body, and had absorbed the 
attention not only of the National Legislature but of the entire 
Nation. Thomas Jefferson, in a private letter, dated February 
7, 1820, says: "It [i. e., the Missouri Question] is the most 
portentous one which ever yet threatened our Union. In the 
gloomiest moment of the revolutionary war I never had any 
apprehensions equal to what I feel from this source." And 
again, in another letter, dated April 22, 1820, after the first 
fight had ended, he gloomily and prophetically adds: "But 
this momentous question, like a fire ball in the night, awakened 
and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell 
of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this 
is a reprieve only, not a single sentence."^' The struggle in 
Congress revealed the desire of the House to place a restriction 
on slavery in Missouri, and the determination of the Senate to 



•■ Ibid., pp. 1558-1568. 
^ "Ibid., pp. 1572f. 
" Ibid., I. pp. 467ff. 
•< Ibid., II. pp. 1575-88. 

•» Writings. X. 156. (Letter to Hugh Nelson, dated February 7, 1820.) 
Ibid., pp. 157f. (Letter to John Holmes, dated April 22, 1820.) 
M S — 5 



66 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

prevent this. The Compromise originated in the Senate and 
was the product of Thomas, who introduced it as a bill, then as 
an amendment; who withdrew it, and again introduced it as 
an amendment, which passed the Senate and, finally, the House. 
The amendment proposed by Thomas is practically the same 
as that of Storrs's in the House, but the former introduced his 
first. The Missouri Enabling Act was approved by President 
Monroe on March 6, 1820;^® its provisions will now be con- 
sidered in concluding this chapter. 

The act of March 6, 1820, consisted of eight sections. The 
first section empowered the inhabitants of Missouri Territory, 
under such rules and regulations as were later set forth, to form 
a constitution and state government and to assume such name 
as they wished. It also declared that such state when formed 
should be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the 
original states in all respects. It was in pursuance of this 
section and by virtue of the authority therein given to Missouri 
that the inhabitants of this territory, acting in a regularly con- 
stituted manner, framed and adopted a state constitution; 
organized and set in working a state government; and choose 
a name for their state. It is regrettable that the latter part of 
this section was not so readily carried out. 

Section two defined the boundaries of the new state, which 
were the same as those set forth in article I of the Missouri 
Constitution of 1820. Curiously enough these boundaries were 
nearly the same as those requested in the popular memorials of 
1817. The northern boundary in the memorial of 1817 was the 
same as that included in the Enabling Act of 1820, i. e., about 
forty degrees and thirty-five minutes, ^^ while, as set forth in 
the legislative memorial of 1818, it ran about one degree farther 
north or between sixty and seventy miles. The western bound- 
ary requested in the memorial of 1817 was the Osage boundary 

"Stat, at Large, III. 545ff; Mo. Ter. Laws. I. 628flf; Annals of Congress, Six- 
teenth Congress, first session, II. 2555fT. 

•'As we have noticed, the memorial of 1817 was confusing in its language on 
the northern boundary. That memorial speaks in one place of making the north- 
ern boundary coincide with the fortieth parallel, and in another with the Indian 
boundary line near the mouth of the Des Moines River. The Indian boundary 
line was later decided to be that surveyed by John C. Sullivan in 1816, and is 
about forty degrees and thirty-five minutes north latitude. Houck, op. cit., 
1. 14f. Gannett, Boundaries oj United States, pp. 122f. 




BOL NDARV OF MISSOURI AS I'IRST 
SUGGKSTED IN 1.S17. 

I-rim Iloiick's Hist, ol Mo., I. ;. 




IJOLNOAR^OK MISSOIRI AS SLC.CJl'.Sria) 15VTH1 
Tl'.RRl lORIAl. l.ianSLArrRI', IN iH\s. 

I'lMin II.Huk\s //i../. W .!/«., I. ,^. 




HOI' NDARV OF MISSOURI AS ADoPTi;!) BV 
CONGRESS IN 1820. 

I'r.im Houck's Hist, of Mo., I. 6. 




BOUNDARY OF MISSOURI W 111 1 1111. IM.AITK 
PL'RCIIASK ADDI'I) 

From Houck's I/i.<l. uj Mu., 1. iz. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 67 

line, or a line about twenty-four miles east of the one adopted 
in the Enabling Act, which latter was a north and south line 
running through the mouth of the Kansas river: the boundary 
requested in the legislative memorial of 1818 was thirty miles 
to the west of the one named by Congress. The southern 
boundary set forth in the 1817 memorial was thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes, which was adopted by Congress, except to 
include the New Madrid strip between the Mississippi River 
and the St. Francois River as far as the thirty-sixth parallel. 
As has already been stated above, the legislative memorial of 
1818 had asked for much more than this on the southeast. In 
both memorials and in the Enabling Act, the eastern boundary 
was naturally the Mississippi River. From this summary it 
is seen that Congress decided in favor of the 1817 petitions on 
the northern boundary; compromised between the petitions of 
1817 and 1818 on the western boundary; and in general followed 
the petition of 1817 on the southern boundary, making, however, 
a slight concession on the extreme southeast in favor of the 1818 
petition. 

These extensive boundaries, which made Missouri at that 
time the second largest state geographically, were not obtained 
without some opposition in Congress, ^^ and were probably the 
result of the activity of Missouri's Delegate in Congress. Scott 
said, in a letter regarding this: "I had some difificulties to en- 
counter in regard to the boundaries of our state, these grew princi- 
pally out of those petitions of a part of our citizens, that had for 
their object to make the Missouri River the dividing line. The 
comparatively small number of the whole mass of the people who 
signed these petitions, being only between five and six hundred 
signers, the obvious bad policy of the measure, and the dangers 
of delay, which our friends ardently saw must result from such 
a division enabled me to put the application aside, and that 
boundaries adjusted which are as large as I was able to obtain. 
The smaller states felt the weight of the larger states and did 
not want to increase their number, and the larger states did not 
want to create rivals to their preponderance." ^^ 



•• Niles' Register, XVII. 440. 

"St. Louis Enquirer, Aug. 2, 1S20; Missouri Intelligencer, Aug. 12, 1820. 



68 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Congress further stated that these were to be the boundaries 
of this State: provided, that this State ratify them, "and pro- 
vided also" that this State have concurrent jurisdiction on the 
Mississippi "and every other river bordering on the said State" 
so far as they form its boundary, and that the Mississippi River 
and the navigable rivers leading into it shall be "common high- 
ways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said 
State as to other citizens of the United States, without any tax, 
duty, import or toll therefor, imposed by the said State." The 
first proviso was carried out in article I of the Missouri Con- 
stitution of 1820, and the second in section 2 of article X. 

The third section of the Enabling Act provided for the 
election of representatives to a constitutional convention. The 
electors included "all free white male citizens of the United 
States, who shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years, 
and have resided in said territory three months previous to the 
day of election, and all other persons qualified to vote for repre- 
sentatives to the General Assembly of the said territory." 
This is one of the lowest qualifications for an elector that have 
ever obtained in Missouri. It is recalled that the act of Con- 
gress of June 4, 1812, relating to Missouri, provided that electors 
of representatives to the Territory Legislature were required to 
have resided in the territory twelve months before the election, 
and to have paid a territorial county tax assessment made at 
least six months before the election. The qualifications of elect- 
ors as set forth in the Constitution of 1820 omitted the tax re- 
quirement, but required a residence of one year in the State 
and three months in the county or district.^" 

The forty-one representatives or delegates to the conven- 
tion were apportioned among the fifteen counties of Missouri as 
follows: Howard, five; Cooper, three; Montgomery, two; Pike, 
one; Lincoln, one; St. Charles, three; Franklin, one; St. Louis, 
eight; Jefferson, one; Washington, three; Ste. Genevieve, four; 
Madison, one; Cape Girardeau, five; New Madrid, two; Wayne, 
including that portion of Lawrence county in Missouri, one. 

This apportionment was manifestly unjust to certain coun- 
ties, as is seen on consulting the United States census of Mis- 

"> Missouri Constitution, 1820, III. Sec. 10. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 



69 



souri taken in August, 1820, by the United States Marshal. ^^ 
Although there are individual exceptions, it is clear that the 
counties north of the Missouri river and the county of Cooper 
were the most unfairly dealt with in this apportionment. These 
counties contained a population of 32,859 and were apportioned 
only fifteen delegates, while the counties south of the Missouri 
river, excluding Cooper, contained a population of 33,745 and 



•' The Missouri Intelligencer of April 16, 1821, gives the total population of 
Missouri taken by the United States Marshal on August 1, 1820, as 66,604; the 
U. S. Census of 1850, p. 665, gives the population of Missouri in 1820 as 66,557; 
and the U. S. Census of 1900, Pop. I. pp. 27f., as 66,586. Following is the census 
of Missouri in 1820 arranged by counties; 



According to the 

Missouri 

Intelligencer, 

April 16, 1821. 



According to 

United States 

Census, 

1900. 



Cape Girardeau. 

Cooper 

Franklin 

Howard 

Jefferson 

Lincoln 

Madison 

Montgomery .... 
New Madrid. . . . 

Pike 

St. Charles 

Ste. Genevieve. . 

St. Louis 

Washington 

Wayne 

Actual Total 



5,965 
6,959 
2,379 
13,427 
1,835 
1,662 
2,047 
3,074 
2,296 
3,747 
3,990 
5,048 
9,732 
3,000 
1,443 



5,968 
6.959 
2,379 

13,426 
1,835 
1,662 
2,047 
3,074 
2,296 
3.747 
3,970 
4.962 

10,049 
2,769 
1,443 



66,604 



66,586 



The very slight difference in the census according to the two above sources 
is not sufficient to justify discussion in this work. It might be of interest to note 
that the (St. Louis) Missouri Gazette of March 14, 1821, gives the enumerated 
popxilation of St. Louis by sex, color, and age, and its total is 9,732, or the same as 
the Missouri Intelligencer April 16, 1821. In this chapter, the figures of the 
Missouri Intelligencer will be used unless otherwise specified. However, the gen- 
eral statements made and conclusions reached hold equally true, is based on the 
1820 census as set forth in the United States Census of 1900. The St. Louis 
Enquirer of March 31, 1821, gives the census the same as the Missouri Intelli- 
gencer, but omits Howard county. The total is given as 66,607, and the actual 
sum is 53,177. The difference is 13,430. which is practically the same as the 
Intelligencer gives for Howard county. The U. S. Census of 1830 (p. 23 of Schedule 
of the Census of 1790, 1800, 1810 and 1820) gives the same population of Missouri 
by counties for 1820 as the U. S. Census of 1900. 



70 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

were given twenty-six delegates. Howard county, the largest 
and most populous county in Missouri, with a population of 
13,427, was given five delegates; St. Louis county, with a popu- 
lation of 9,732, was given eight delegates; and Cape Girardeau 
county, with a population of 5,965, was given five delegates. 
Pike county, with a population of 3,747, had only one delegate; 
while Washington, with a population of 3,000, had three dele- 
gates. Cooper county, with a population of 6,959, had three 
delegates; and Ste. Genevieve county, with a population of 5,048, 
had four delegates. The counties that were apportioned one 
delegate for every 1,300 of their population or less were Cape 
Girardeau, Franklin, New Madrid, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, 
and Washington. All these were south of the Missouri river, 
and at that time were the homes of the leading lawyers and pol- 
iticians of Missouri. A delegate from Washington county 
represented only 1,000 persons; from New Madrid, 1,148; 
from Franklin, 1,189; from Cape Girardeau, 1,193; from St. 
Louis, 1,216; from Ste. Genevieve, 1,262; and from St. Charles, 
1,330: while a delegate from Pike county represented 3,747 
persons; from Howard, 2, 685; from Cooper, 2,319; from Madison, 
2,047; from Jefferson, 1,835; from Lincoln, 1,662; from Mont- 
gomery, 1,537; and from Wayne, 1,443. It is seen that, ex- 
cepting Franklin county, most of the counties created in 1818 
were unjustly dealt with; while the counties erected prior to 
that year were greatly favored, excepting Howard, which con- 
tained one-fifth of the population of Missouri in 1820, but was 
apportioned only one-eighth of the delegates to the Convention. 
When it is remembered that the three frontier counties, Howard, 
Cooper, and Pike, contained a population of 24,133, and re- 
ceived only nine delegates, while St. Louis county, with a popu- 
lation of 9,732, was apportioned eight delegates, the glaring 
injustice that had been done to the Boone's Lick and Salt River 
districts is plainly perceived. 

One might object to these statements on the grounds that 
the apportionment of the delegates should be considered from 
the standpoint of the free white male inhabitants, and not on 
the basis of the total population, including whites and blacks. 
This would be a valid objection, considering that representatives 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 71 

to the lower house of the Territorial Legislature had been ap- 
portioned on this basis since the establishment of the body in 
1812, were it not for the fact that statistics regarding the white 
males of Missouri in 1820 furnish equal support to what we have 
said. 92 

As a matter of fact, the country north of the Missouri 
River and the county of Cooper had increased in population by 
leaps and bounds since the census of 1817. Nor was this a 
matter of mere sectional knowledge; it was observed and com- 
mented upon by both the writers and the newspapers of the day.^' 
The inhabitants of the Boone's Lick country were not only 
aware of their numbers, but both Cooper and Howard counties 
protested strongly against the small number of convention 
delegates apportioned them by Congress. They not only 
resented being so unjustly discriminated against, but they 
especially feared that their section would not receive its due 
consideration in the many questions certain to arise in the con- 
vention. One of the main issues with them, an important issue 
all over the territory, was the location of the permanent seat of 



»' Following is the number of free white male inhabitants in the various 
counties of Missouri in 1820 (U. S. Census, 1830, p. 23 of Schedule of United States 
Census, 1790, 1800, 1810, 1820): Cape Girardeau. 2,658; Cooper, 3,383; Franklin, 
1,190; Howard, 6,160; Jefferson, 867; Lincoln. 799; Madison, 901; Montgomery, 
1.425; New Madrid, 1,068; Pike, 1.749; St. Charles, 1,857; Ste. Genevieve, 2,071; 
St. Louis, 4,837; Washington, 1.286; Wayne. 750. If the same apportionment 
for delegates had obtained that was provided for representatives of the lower 
house of the general assembly by the law of February 1, 1817 {Mo. Ter. Laws, 
pp. 550f.), i. e., one representative for every five hundred free white male inhabit- 
ants in each county, there would have been fifty-four delegates, of which twenty- 
seven would have been elected by the counties north of the Missouri River in- 
cluding Cooper county. Instead of this there was apportioned to those counties 
only fifteen delegates out of a total of forty-one. As a matter of fact, the Boone's 
Lick Country, including Cooper county and the counties north of the Missouri 
River, contained about one-half of both the total population and the free white 
male population of the territory in 1820. This section contained 15,373 free 
white male inhabitants, and the rest of the territory 15,628; the former had a 
total population of 32,859 persons, the latter, 33,745. 

On the other hand, if the basis of apportionment for delegates had been the 
same that had been provided for representatives of the lower house of the terri- 
torial general assembly by the law of December 21, 1818, (Mo. Ter. Laws, pp. 
609f.) i. e., one representative for every seven hundred free white male inhabitants 
In each county, there would have been thirty-six, perhaps thirty-eight, delegates; 
of these the northern part of Missouri, including Cooper coxmty, would have 
elected twenty-one. 

"Missouri Gazette, June 9. 1819; Oct. 20. 1819; Jan. 26, 1820; Flint, Recol- 
lections, p. 201; Missouri Intelligencer, Apr. 1, 1820; Apr. 22, 1820. 



72 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

government. The frontier Missouri River people wanted the 
capitol as far west as possible, or at least centrally located. 
They knew that the other districts would oppose this. On such 
an issue, the number of delegates which a section could produce 
was of the greatest importance. The only hope left to the 
Boone's Lick people was the calling of another election under a 
new apportionment, as provided for in section four of the En- 
abling Act.^* It is now necessary to explain as far as possible 
why such an unjust apportionment was made; one of the first, 
but not the last, that has occurred in the history of this State. 
Scott, in a letter to the people of Missouri, announcing 
his candidacy to Congress, which appeared in the St. Louis 



"The Missouri Intelligencer of April 1, 1820, gives the population of the 
Boone's Lick Country as 12,000. In an article in the Missouri Intelligencer of 
April 22, 1820, by one signing himself "Simon Crabtree," the following general 
statements are made that show how conversant the Howard-Cooper people were 
with the facts regarding this whole matter: Congress made the apportionment 
of delegates on the basis of the enumeration of 1818; by the enumeration of 1819 
Howard and Cooper counties are entitled to twelve and not eight delegates; in 
1818 Howard and Cooper had 4,128 free white males which, at one representative 
to each 500, gives eight representatives. (Note: There was no enumeration 
made in 1818, but the following statement shows that there was one made in 1819. 
It is important to notice this, as it will later be used in considering Scott's apology 
or explanation of this Congressional apportionment of 1820.) Now Howard 
has 3,862 free white males, and Cooper, 2,697, which would allow these counties 
seven and five delegates respectively (Note: This was far too low, as has been 
seen above.); in order to get the seat of government as near the center of State 
as possible, these counties must have more representatives; the Enabling Act 
permits the first convention to order a new election, and Congress inserted this 
provision knowing that eight new counties had been made, and that Missouri 
Territory north of the Missouri River had increased in population; those delegates 
favoring the seat of government in St. Louis will oppose a new election ; therefore 
send men who will stand out for this. Pike county on Salt River has one repre- 
sentative, and it possibly should have five; Lincoln and St. Charles counties 
should also have more representatives, as they have greatly increased since 1818 
(Note: Although Lincoln county was slightly discriminated against, the injustice 
done was nothing in comparison with the under apportionment of Pike, Howard, 
and Cooper counties; and St. Charles was not entitled to more than her three 
delegates, according to the United States Census of Missouri of 1820.); and in 
short, the population of all the new counties erected since the enumeration of 
1818 was guessed at. 

In the same issue of the Intelligencer appeared an article by David Todd, 
announcing, on April 14, 1820, his candidacy as a delegate from Howard county. 
In this, Mr. Todd says that the seat of government should be centrally located, 
but that "its immediate location in a central portion cannot be reasonably an- 
ticipated, when we reflect how unequal our representation is when compared with 
the lower part of the State; but efforts will be requisite to insure such a location 
even within a few years hence." 

On May 13, 1820, an anonymous article under the caption, "A Missourian," 
appeared in the Missouri Intelligencer in which it is stated that, in order to get 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 73 

Enquirer, August 2, 1820, gave quite a lengthy explanation or 
apology for the apportionment.'^ It is important in reading 
this explanation of Scott's to remember that he was running 
for Congress. In the first place, Scott stated that the appor- 
tionment of delegates was in his hands, and that, excepting 
three counties, the only enumeration of the inhabitants he had 
was the census of 1817, which was of little value, not only on 
account of its age, but especially because eight new counties 
had been erected in 1818 from the old counties.'* In short he 
admitted that in apportioning the delegates for twelve coun- 
ties, "it was neither more nor less than a matter of guess." He 
excused this ignorance on his part by citing the difficulties of 
the members of the convention when they apportioned the 
state senators and representatives to the first legislature, who, 
through lack of evidence on the population of the several coun- 
ties, were themselves forced to compromise on this point. 
Finally, he stated that he had provided a remedy in the form 
of a new election and a new convention for correcting any dis- 
crimination in the apportionment of delegates. 

This remedy for unequal apportionment was also included 
in the fourth section of the Enabling Act of Illinois." The 
wording in both acts on this point is practically the same, and 
the slightest examination discloses its inherent defect. In 
effect, it placed the power of making a just apportionment in 
the hands of those who had been favored by an unjust appor- 
tionment, and in usual political practice such a provision has 



the seat of government near the center of the State, it will be necessary to call a 
new election, wherein Howard and Cooper counties would have more represent- 
atives. And on May 20, 1820, another article under the caption, "A Voter," 
states that the greatest thing in this convention is to be "properly represented 
according to the population of the several counties." 

All these quotations and briefs of articles that appeared in the Missouri 
Intelligencer during the spring of 1820 have been given in order to show how 
keenly alive and wide awake the Boone's Lick people were on this matter of the 
apportionment of the delegates. 

•» This address of Mr. Scott's also appeared in the Missouri Intelligencer of 
August 12, 1820. 

•• Scott, in his letter, in referring to the eight old counties that were divided 
so as to form fifteen counties, probably includes Lawrence county among the eight. 
The eight new counties erected in 1818 were Wayne, Madison, Jeflenson, Franklin, 
Cooper, Pike, Lincoln and Montgomery. 

"Stat, at Large, III. 428ff. (Act of April 18, 1818). 



74 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

been found to be about as efficacious as a prohibition against 
gerrymandering when the three branches of the government 
are of one political machine. The mere fact that the convention 
did not apply this remedy ought not, as Scott thought it should, 
exculpate him from censure. 

That part of Scott's explanation which attempted to 
excuse his poor apportionment by citing the example of the 
delegates' compromise on legislative apportionment, appears 
to us the merest sophistry. Scott's difficulty in apportioning 
delegates, and the difficulty of the convention in apportioning 
representatives and senators, require only a few words to show 
their dissimilarity. Scott may have been in ignorance regarding 
the population of most of Missouri's counties, but it has been 
seen from articles that appeared in the Missouri Intelligencer 
that the delegates from Howard and Cooper at least knew ap- 
proximately, if not exactly, the total number of white males in 
these two counties in 1819. There is no record besides Scott's 
statement that the convention delegates were embarrassed and 
finally forced to compromise on the apportionment of repre- 
sentatives and senators, but if such a condition existed it can 
easily be explained on the basis of the conflicting wishes of the 
several groups of delegates who were looking out for their own 
interests, perhaps at the expense of a just apportionment. 
The compromise in the convention, if there was one, was more 
probably based on interest than on ignorance; and the fact 
that certain counties had more delegates than they were en- 
titled to probably helped to render a just apportionment impos- 
sible. But even though laboring under this difficulty, there 
was a far closer approximation to true representation according 
to population as followed by the Convention than by Scott. '^ 
In fact, considering the overwhelming strength of the delegates 
from those counties containing a minority of. the inhabitants, 
as opposed by the comparatively few delegates from such 
populous counties as Howard, Cooper, and Pike, it is remark- 



•' Seo Schedule to Constitution of 1820, sec. 7. Following is a list of the 
counties of Missouri in 1820, and the number of delegates apportioned to each 
by Scott, and the number of representatives in the first State Legislature appor- 
tioned to each by the convention, togetlier with the number of delegates that 
each county would have had if either the session act of the Missouri Territorial 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 75 



able that such a just apportionment was made by the convention. 
That this body knew the approximate population of each county 
is evident from the number of representatives assigned to the 
several counties. In only five counties did a representative 
represent less than fifteen hundred persons, and these five 
counties elected only twelve representatives out of a total of 
thirty-nine. In only one county did a representative represent 
over two thousand persons, and this was in the case of Madison, 
with its population of 2,047, to which was allotted one repre- 
sentative. All the other counties were given one representative 
on a basis of population ranging from 1500 to 1873 persons. A 
representative from St. Louis county represented 1,622 persons, 
and from Howard county 1,678. Such an equality would have 
been remarkable under more propitious circumstances, and 
stands out in striking contrast to the apportionment in the 
Enabling Act. 



Legislature of February 1, 1817, or that of December 21, 1818, had been followed 
in this apportionment. Cf. this with the population of the several counties as 
set forth in note 91, supra. 



Counties. 



Delegates, if 
apportioned 
by act of 
Missouri 
Legislature 
Feb. 1, 1817. 



Delegates, if 

apportioned 

by act of 

Missouri 

Legislature 

Dec. 21, 1818. 



Delegates to 

Convention 

by act of 

Congress, 

March 6, 

1820. 



Represent- 
atives in 
First State 
Legislature. 



Cape Girardeau 

Cooper 

Franklin 

Howard 

Jefferson 

Lincoln 

Madison 

Montgomery . . . 
New Madrid. . . 

Pike 

St. Charles 

Ste. Genevieve. 

St. Louis 

Washington. . . . 
Wayne 

Totals 



5 
6 
2 
12 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
3 
3 
4 
9 
2 
1 



3 
4 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2(3) 

6(7) 

1 

1 



36 



43 



76 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

In concluding this matter of the apportionment of the 
delegates, it may be said that it could hardly have been more 
unjust to certain counties; that Scott's apology or explanation 
is more plausible before than after examination; that his ignor- 
ance of the development and increase of population in the 
Boone's Lick and Salt River countries was almost inexcusable, 
considering the publication of four newspapers in Missouri in 
1819; and, finally, that his guessing at the apportioning of the 
delegates is remarkable, if nothing more, in its inaccuracy, 
being favorable towards the Mississippi River counties and their 
dependencies, and unfavorable to the northern and western 
frontier centers of population. 

The discussion of the remainder of section three of the 
Enabling Act will now be resumed. The delegates were to be 
elected on the first Monday and two succeeding days of the 
following May, and the election was to be conducted in the same 
manner as those for representatives to the General Assembly. 

Section four provided that the delegates should meet in 
convention at the seat of government on the second Monday 
of the following June and were given the privilege of adjourning 
to another place, and also of holding another election and ap- 
portionment of delegates if they saw fit to do so. This con- 
vention was given power "to form a Constitution and state 
government for the people within the said territory" of Mis- 
souri, provided: 1st, that the same "shall be republican" and 
"not repugnant to the constitution of the United States;" 2d, 
that the state legislature "shall never interfere with the primary 
disposal of the soil of the United States," etc.; 3d, that "no tax 
shall be imposed on lands, the property of the United States;" 
and 4th, that "in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed 
higher than residents." This entire section is practically the 
same as that of the Illinois Enabling Act of April 18, 1818.^^ 

Section five provided that "until the next general census 
shall be taken, the said State shall be entitled to one repre- 
sentative in the House of Representatives of the United States." 

In section six were set forth five propositions for the ac- 
ceptance or rejection of the convention. If accepted by that 



•• Slat, at Large, III. pp. 428fl. 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 77 

body they are to be binding upon the United States. The 
first proposition provided a grant to the State of the sixteenth 
section of land or its equivalent in each township for the use 
of schools in that township. The Territorial General Assembly 
in its third and sixth resolutions of November 22, 1818, had 
requested Missouri's delegate in Congress to "use his exertions 
to procure" from Congress a donation of "all vacant lots and 
pieces of ground, in towns or villages in which they lie, for 
the support of schools," and also two per cent of the sales of 
public lands in Missouri "for the support of the schools in 
the State." In this instance Congress adhered to its general 
custom of granting the sixteenth section of land in each town- 
ship for the support of schools. Resting largely on this foun- 
dation grant and other Congressional grants is the present public 
school system of Missouri, with its State school fund which ranks 
among the largest of the several States. This grant was the 
origin of the "township school fund."^"° General regulations 
relating to this grant were included in Article VI of the Missouri 
Constitution of 1820. 

The second proposition provided a grant by the national 
government to Missouri of "all salt springs, not exceeding twelve 
in number, with six sections of land adjoining each" for the use 
of this State. This grant was placed under the regulation of 
the State Legislature and it was provided "that the legislature 
shall never sell or lease the same, at any one time, for a longer 
period than ten years, without the consent of Congress." The 
Missouri Territorial Legislature on November 22, 1818, had 
in its first resolution asked the following donation from Con- 
gress: "Lead mines, with one section of land adjoining to 
each, and salt springs, with four sections of land adjoining each, 
to be leased for the use of the State." Delegate Scott said that 
he asked for a grant of some of the numerous lead mines of 
Missouri, but that this request was refused. ^•'^ 

'"Encyc. Hist. Mo. V. 504. 

'»'S<. Louis Enquirer, Aug. 2, 1820. Letter of John Scott to the people 
of Missouri in his candidacy to Congress. Following is a part of this document, 
which has already been referred to: 

"At the time of passing the law authorizing us to form a constitution and 
assume a state government, I perhaps had xmexpected success in obtaining liberal 
grants, and donations to the state, for in addition to the grants usually made to 



78 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Congress provided in its third proposition a grant of five 
per cent of the net proceeds of the sale of pubHc lands in Mis- 
souri made after January 1, 1821, "for making public roads 
and canals." Of this sum, three-fifths was under the direction 
of the state legislature for these objects within the State; and 
two-fifths under Congress for building highways leading to this 
State. It is interesting to note in this connection the requests 
made by the Missouri Territorial Legislature of 1818. Be- 
sides the three per cent grant under the direction of the Legis- 
lature "for opening roads and canals, and building bridges, 
within the State," that body also asked for a nine per cent grant 
under the direction of Congress to be applied as follows: 1st, 
one per cent "for perfecting the water communications between 
the Mississippi and lake [sic] Michigan, by the Illinois and 
Ouisconsin rivers;" 2d, six per cent "for continuing the national 
western turnpike road, from Wheeling, on the Ohio, to Saint 
Louis;" and 3d, two per cent "for opening a road direct from 
Saint Louis to New Orleans." From this is seen the great 
amount of concern that was centered in 1818 in Missouri over 
this question of roads and canals. Considering the great extent 



new states of two per cent out of the sales of the public lands to be laid out in roads 
and canals leading to the state, and three per cent from the same sales, to be 
appropriated to objects of Internal improvement within the state exclusively under 
the control of our own legislature, together with one section of land in each town- 
ship, for the use of schools in these townships respectively, and the townships of 
land given for the erection and support of a state university, I was so fortunate 
as to obtain an extraordinary donation of twelve salt springs to be selected by 
the legislature, with six sections of land attached to each, to be used for state 
purposes. Those springs I hope, if prudently, economically and judiciously 
managed, will form a source of revenue to no small amount, the happy effects of 
which will be at no distant period to lighten the taxes, and burthens of the people. 
— I also selected other grants for state purposes, such as an additional per cent 
for purposes both of external and internal improvement and a portion of the 
numerous lead mines with which our country abounds; these however were re- 
fused, but the residue of the salt springs, and the lead mines, after the adjourn- 
ment of the several private claims, will doubtless be disposed of as other public 
lands, and become subject to individual enterprise, thereby increasing our soiu-ces 
of commerce, and lessen to the people, the price of one of the most important 
necessaries of life." 

Regarding Scott's remarkable success in obtaining so many salt springs, it 
might be noted that the second proposition in the sixth section of the Illinois 
Enabling Act a grant was made to Illinois of all the salt springs in that state, 
together with the land reserved for the use of same. {Stat, at Large. 111. 428ff.) 

We are not conversant with any work that treats of the history of these salt 
springs. Tlie Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri, V. 477, contains a para- 
graph on the salt springs and "Saline Lands." 



Petitions for Statehood and Struggle in Congress. 79 

of the public domain at that time, it is perhaps true that more 
was asked for roads than for education. ^"^ 

Congress granted to this State, in its fourth proposition, 
"four entire sections of land" "for the purpose of fixing their 
seat of government thereon." The Missouri Territorial Legis- 
lature in 1818 had asked Congress for a grant of "one entire 
township, to be disposed of as the legislature of the State shall 
direct, for the purpose of raising a fund for erecting State build- 
ings, at the permanent seat of government." This rather ex- 
travagant request seems to have met with little favor in Congress, 
and was pared down to four sections of public land to be used 
for this purpose. 

The fifth and last proposition of Congress contained a 
grant of thirty-six sections of land "together with the other lands 
heretofore reserved for that purpose" for the use of a seminary 
of learning. The management of this grant was vested in the 
State Legislature, and in section two of article VI of the Mis- 
souri Constitution of 1820, general regulations were set forth 
regarding it.^"^ The grant for a university or seminary of learn- 
ing is the same as was requested of Congress by the territorial 
legislature of 1818. Included under this fifth proposition were 
two provisos which were ratified by the Missouri constitutional 
convention of 1820 in "An Ordinance" of acceptance on July 
19, 1820. In general, these two provisos were: 1st, that these 
five propositions were conditional on the consent of the Mis- 
souri constitutional convention providing by ordinance that 



!oj "This is a state fund made up of the proceeds of 3 per cent of all sales of 
United States public lands sold in the territory and State of Missouri, which by 
the act of Congress of 1822 were to be paid over to the State and used for the 
construction of roads and canals, three-fifths on works leading to the State. The 
receipts are small — only $597 in 1897 and $228 in 1898. The money is equally 
divided between tlie counties." Ibid., V. 366. 

In the Enabling Act of Illinois, Congress donated two per cent of the sale 
of public lands in that State to be used for making roads leading to the new state, 
and this was placed under the regulation of Congress; and three per cent was placed 
under the legislature of IlUnois for the encouragement of learning, of which sum 
one-sixth was for a college or university. {Slat, at Large, III., 428fr.) 

'«» The Encyclopedia of the History oj Missouri, VI. 776, in an article on the 
University of Missouri, states that one of the permanent interest-bearing endow- 
ments of that institution is the following: "Proceeds of sales of forty-six thousand 
acres of seminary lands donated by Congress March 6, 1820, invested in a State 
certificate of indebtedness at six per cent per annum interest — $122,000.00." 

A similar grant was made to Illinois. (See Stat, at Large, III. 428ff.) 



80 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

all public lands of United States sold after January 1, 1821, 
should be exempt from all state, county or township taxes for 
five years from date of sale; and 2d, that bounty lands granted 
for military services during the war of 1812 should be exempt 
from taxes for three years from date of the patents providing 
these lands are held by the patentees or their heirs. 

Section seven of the Enabling Act provided that an au- 
thenticated copy of the constitution of Missouri when framed, 
be transmitted to Congress. This was duly done by the Con- 
vention of 1820. 

The last section of this act, section eight, contained the 
famous First Missouri Compromise, which has already been 
discussed; and also provided a brief fugitive slave enactment. 



CHAPTER III. 
POPULAR OPINION IN MISSOURI, 1819. 

It is our purpose in this chapter to set forth the sentiment 
that prevailed in Missouri following the failure of the Fifteenth 
Congress in its second session (1818-1819) to pass an Enabling 
Act for Missouri; in the next chapter we will consider the elec- 
tion of delegates to the Missouri constitutional convention of 
1820. The one is a study of the wave of protest and indigna- 
tion that swept over Missouri after the House of Representatives 
during the winter of 1819 had attempted to impose a slavery- 
restriction clause on that territory as a requisite for permission 
to form a state constitution; the other is not only a consideration 
of the election of delegates to Missouri's first constitutional con- 
vention, but also includes a treatment of the sentiment which 
prevailed in Missouri Territory in 1820 on the question of 
slavery. The former deals with Missouri's attitude towards 
Congress when that body attempted slavery restriction in Mis- 
souri: the latter considers, among other things, Missouri's atti- 
tude towards slavery itself. 

The two attitudes are to a certain degree distinct, but the 
influence of the one on the other is always present. Questions 
arise that illustrate this latter point with clearness. For 
example: how much of Missouri's protest in 1819 against any 
Congressional restriction of slavery in this State was based on 
Missouri's constitutional scruples, and how much rested on her 
desire and determination to perpetuate slavery within her 
boundaries? or: to what extent was Missouri's election of pro- 
slavery and anti-restriction slavery delegates to her constitu- 
tional convention the result of her indignation against the 
attempt made by Congress to impose a slavery restriction on 
this State? We believe, however, that although thus closely 
related, these two subjects logically demand separate consid- 
eration. 

In this chapter we will describe the sentiment in Missouri 
in 1819 as revealed (1) in the resolutions adopted at various 

M S— 6 (81) 



82 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

public meetings, (2) in the toasts drunk at public celebrations 
and dinners, (3) in the presentments of Grand Juries, (4) in the 
newspaper editorials, and (5) in the individual articles that ap- 
peared over noms-de-guerre. These are summarized, and from 
them together with the accounts of travelers in Missouri during 
that time are reached certain, definite conclusions on the subject 
at hand.^ 

One of the most reliable sources of information showing the 
sentiment in Missouri over the action of Congress during its 
session of 1818-1819, is the protests and resolutions drawn up 
and adopted at those public meetings, scattered over the Ter- 
ritory, that were assembled solely for this purpose. These 
public meetings were held from April to September of 1819 in 
the seven counties of Montgomery, St. Louis, Howard,^ Wash- 
ington, Ste. Genevieve, New Madrid and Cape Girardeau. 
No similar bodies are met with during the winter of 1820,^ but 
in the spring of that year public gatherings again made their 
appearance in Missouri. These latter meetings did not, how- 
ever, consider the past action of Congress, except in a very 
general way, but devoted their attention to the discussion of 
slavery within the proposed State and to the election of delegates 
to the constitutional convention. The popular gatherings of 
1819 were almost wholly bodies that protested against the de- 
layed admission of Missouri, and directed their protests against 
the majority in the House of Representatives who had attempted 
restricting slavery in the new state. Naturally the subject of 
slavery in se was discussed and sometimes included in the 
declarations of these meetings, and some light on the sentiment 
in Missouri on slavery can be obtained from their expressed 



' The satisfactory and comprehensive character of the source material con- 
sulted obviates our referring to any secondary authority. Such secondary au- 
thorities as appear in foot-notes in the conclusions are mentioned only incidentally, 
and not as substantiating or negativing any conclusion drawn by us. 

• The public meeting of Howard county which was held in Franklin, Mis- 
souri, represented the people of the entire Boone's Lick Country including Cooper 
county. 

• This is not remarkable as the inhabitants of Missouri entertained the hope 
that the Congress of 1819-1820 would pass an enabling act for this State and not 
repeat the history of the session of 1818-1819. They undoubtedly had decided 
to wait till the end of the 1819-20 session before taking any action, and con- 
sidering their recent activity in this line during the preceding summer, this was 
quite a reasonable course to follow. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 83 

language; but it must be emphasized here that these declarations 
on their surface were essentially protests against Congressional 
restriction. Whatever statements they made on the question 
of slavery in se are to be very carefully accepted or rejected 
and then only after strict historical criticism. Their greatest 
value on this point lies in their proper interpretation by the 
historian after a survey of the entire field of related facts has 
been made. 

The first public meeting of this kind was held on the 28th 
of April, 1819 by the citizens of Montgomery county.* After 
much discussion three declarations and four resolutions were 
unanimously adopted. They declared that Missouri was 
entitled to admission under both the United States constitution 
and the treaty of cession, and that the only legal restriction 
that was applicable was that her state constitution should be 
republican; that Congress had hitherto appeared to them to be 
the "guardian of the inherent principles of freedom" but that 
the last House of Representatives had regarded Missouri "with 
the jealous eye of a partial step mother," and that Alabama 
had been admitted while this territory had been refused, unless 
its people "would stoop to a condition, which degrades them 
below the rank of free men, and lays the foundation of [a] 
slavery more abject than that which Congress pretends to be 
so zealous to reform;" that they viewed the action of the late 
House of Representatives as tantamount to a declaration "that 
they have a right to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever, a 
principle which United America resisted even to blood, in her 
glorious struggle for independence." J They therefore resolved 
that the attempted restriction on Missouri's admission was "a 
daring stretch of power, an usurpation of our most sacred 
rights, unprecedented, unconstitutional, and in open violation 
of the 3d article of the treaty of cession entered into with France ;" 
that they would "never cease to resist with firmness all such 
encroachments upon their rights" by every possible consti- 
tutional means;" that they regretted the necessity causing this 
protest, but duty impelled them to protect their constitution 
against "foreign or domestic foes;" that the present proceedings 

•Afo. Gaz., May 19. 1819; St. Louis Enq., May 12. 1819. 



84 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

be printed in the St. Louis papers. This meeting was a duly 
organized body with a president or chairman and a secretary, 
as were all the other meetings. It dealt with statehood and 
protested against congressional restriction being placed on Mis- 
souri's admission. Only once is slavery referred to : in the second 
declaration doubt is cast on the zeal of Congress in its reforms 
of slavery. However great their indignation, the framers of 
this protest were remarkably conservative and moderate in 
their language. 

The second public meeting of protest was held in the city of 
St. Louis on May 15, 1819, and represented both the city and 
county of that name.^ The meeting was held at the court house 
and met "pursuant to the request contained in the presentment of 
the Grand Jury of the last Superior Court." A large assem- 
blage of both French and American citizens of note were in at- 
tendance, as well as strangers. The importance of this meeting 
is easily seen not only in the large body of citizens present but 
also in the men who guided it. Colonel Alexander McNair 
was its president and the Honorable David Barton secretary; 
both of these were delegates to the constitutional convention 
of 1820, and later the one was elected Missouri's first State 
Governor, the other one of her first United States Senators. 
Thomas Hart Benton, Missouri's United States Senator for 
thirty years, was the principal speaker, and laid before the 
meeting the first six resolutions, which were unanimously 
adopted after their phraseology had been adjusted by such 
eminent men as William C. Carr, Henry Geyer, Edward Bates, 
and Joshua Barton. 

The first resolution adopted declared: "That the Congress 
of the United States have no right to control the provisions of a 
state constitution, except to preserve its republican character." ^ 



' The (St. Louis) Mo. Gaz., of May 19, 1819, contains a copy of the nine 
resolutions adopted together with a brief account of the meeting and its organiza- 
tion. A very complete account of this meeting, together with Thomas Hart 
Benton's speech delivered in defense of the resolutions he submitted for the 
ratification of the meeting, and also a copy of the resolutions adopted, are found 
in the St. Louis Enq., of May 19, 1819. 

• Benton's resolutions are not given verbatim in the report of the meeting 
by the Enquirer of May 19, 1819, but only what his resolutions "imported." 
The import of Benton's six resolutions is the same as the first six adopted. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 85 

The second resolution stated that to prohibit slavery in Mis- 
souri would be "equally contrary to the rights of the State, and 
to the welfare of the slaves themselves." ^ The third resolu- 
tion declared Missouri's population so much exceeded that of 
other territories when admitted that the obstruction of the 
majority in the last House of Representatives to admitting her 
"was an outrage on the principles of the American Constitution, 
and a direct infraction of the third article of the treaty of 
cession." ^ The fourth resolution stated: "That the right of 
the Missouri territory to be admitted into the union of the 
states, depends not upon the will of Congress, but upon the 
treaty of cession, and the principles of the federal constitution." 
The fifth resolution is so startling and bold in its language that 
it is given here in full: "5th Resolves, That the people of this 
territory have a right to meet in convention by their own au- 
thority, and to form a constitution and state government, 
whenever they shall deem it expedient to do so, and that a second 
determination on the part of Congress to refuse them admittance 
upon an equal footing with the original states, will make it ex- 



' Benton in his argument supporting this resolution said the proposed slavery 
restriction infringed Missouri's sovereignty as protected by both the Federal 
constitution and the treaty of cession, and denied to Missourians the right of 
"deciding the question of slavery according to their own will." He added that 
It was "unfriendly to the slaves themselves" as it tended to confine them to the 
South where their condition was notoriously harsher and more severe than in the 
North. He said "that the effect of the restriction was not to diminish the quantum 
of slavery in the Republic," as in Illinois where a similar restriction applied it 
had not given liberty to the slaves and "a free black was [a] rare bird there, unless 
he was a refugee from a neighboring State." Nor was the restriction of any 
value in Illinois, he said, as applied "to those which it intended should be born 
free" since "they were not born there, but in the south, to which their mothers 
are carried before delivery." He concluded his argument on this resolution by 
saying that if the restrictions went "forward to the time (if such a time was ahead) 
when the abolition of slavery throughout the Republic should be the order of the 
day" then "it might be that the people of Missouri would go voluntarily as far 

as any other portion of the union; but until that time arrives, no process 

of reasoning can make it right that they should be forced to the surrender of their 
slaves" etc. 

• Benton supported this resolution by stating: (1) that Missouri's popula- 
tion was larger than that of the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, and 
Mississippi when admitted; (2) that Missouri's training as a territory better 
justified her admission than that of other territories; (3) that the character of 
Missouri's settlers from Tennessee, Kentucky, and the mother states of these 
two was high enough for governing either themselves or others; and (4) that 
both the constitution and the treaty of cession made it imperative upon Congress 
to admit Missouri. 



w 



86 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

pedient to exercise that right." ^ Continuing on this point the 
sixth resolution stated: "That a constitution so formed cannot 
be disapproved by Congress for any other cause, than for anti- 
republican features; and if disapproved upon any other pretext, 
it will be equivalent to an attempt to exclude the territory of 
Missouri from the federation of the states." ^'^ | Benton in con- 
cluding his speech favoring these six resolutions "begged the 
meeting to consider well the resolutions which were offered. 
The eyes of the American people were upon them. They were, 
the first to whose lot it had fallen to make a fair and regular 
stand against the encroachment of Congress upon the Sovereignty 
of the States. The resolutions were intended to be mild in 
their language, strong in their import; and if once adopted, he 
knew that they would never be lightly abandoned." The St. 
Louis Enquirer stated that "several citizens were ready to 
speak" in support of these resolutions after they had been read; 
"but no one" spoke against them and they were "unanimously 
passed." A resolution approving Scott's conduct in Congress 
in defending Missouri was proposed by David Barton and was 
unanimously passed. Carr submitted a resolution recom- 
mending similar meetings throughout the Territory. Some 
opposed this on the ground that although favoring its object 
they wished all such meetings "to be so entirely the spontaneous 
act of the people, as not even to be under the influence of a 
request." The resolution was, however, passed by a consider- 
able majority. The final resolution adopted at this meeting 



/ • Benton said in support of the right of Missouri to hold a constitutiona ' 
convention without the authority of a previous law that examples of such action 
could be found in the convention of the original colonies when they withdrew 
from England and also in the case of Tennessee in 1796. In regard to the expe- 
diency of calling a convention, Benton favored waiting the action of the next ses- 
sion of Congress, and if that body repeated the history of the last session, then 
"as one of the people he was ready to declare himself now, and to stand com- 
mitted from this day forth upon the issue of the declaration: He would be )or 
the call of the convention, etc." Benton then proceeded to attack the selfish and 
political motives that had actuated the majority of the last House of Repre- 
sentatives. 

"Benton strongly endorsed this scheme and said that Congress would have 
to accept such a Constitution as it had done with the Tennessee Constitution 
of 1796. He added: "No matter what might be the honest wishes of some 
mistaken philanthropists; or the selfish or criminal projects of some designing 
politicians. The dreams of the first would be at an end; the second could not 
proceed without peril to themselves." 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 87 

was that the resolutions be signed and printed and a copy for- 
warded to Missouri's Delegate in Congress. 

This meeting was so open and well attended, and included 
so many of the leaders of St. Louis county, that we have no 
hesitancy in accepting it as expressing the real feelings and 
sentiments of the people of that district on the question of 
Congressional restriction of slavery in Missouri. ^^ The gathering 
unanimously opposed such restriction, and although a tone of 
calmness and conservatism pervades the resolutions, the meeting 
went so far as to express its wishes on questions which might 
arise in the future. Benton's speech throws some light on the 
Missourian's attitude on slavery. He opposed slavery in gen- 
eral terms but favored it in Missouri. He considered slavery 
a local issue and resented Congressional interference, and looked 
with suspicion on Congress' philanthropy when directed to one 
spot — Missouri. 

In pursuance of the eighth resolution adopted May 15, 
1819, recommending public meetings throughout the Terri- 
tory, a number of citizens of St. Ferdinand township, in the 
county of St. Louis, met on June 5, 1819, and unanimously 
adopted a set of anti-slavery resolutions.^^ So far as we could 
learn, this was the only anti-slavery public meeting held in 
Missouri in that year. The resolutions adopted at this meeting 
stated: "the amendment to the Missouri state bill in the House 
of Representatives of the United States, meets with our full 
approbation;" "slavery is contrary to the term freedom;" 
slavery "is one of the greatest evils" in the United States "and 
if not protested against" will "bring upon us" the just censure 
of posterity, "as well as the judgment of a just, but angry God\" 
public meetings should be held throughout the territory to 
protest against the "threatening curse of the further admittance 



" John O'Fallon in a letter, dated St. Louis, May 20, 1819, to Gen. T. A. 
Smith wrote as follows on this meeting: "At a large assemblange [sic] of the Town 
and country people on last Saturday [sic] were unanimously adopted some very 
strong resolutions in regard to the conditions attempted to be imposed on the 
Bill for erecting this Ty. into a state; I hope, most ardently, that similar ones 
may be adopted by the other counties, which, if known abroad, would remove 
the apprehension that prevent numbers of slaveholders from removing to this 
country." In T. A. Smith Mss., State Hist Soc. of Mo. 

" A/o. Gaz.. June 23. 1819. 



88 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

of involuntary slavery in the future state of Missouri." More 
of a similar nature was included, and it may be definitely 
stated that these resolutions were strongly anti-slavery in 
character. They were ordered printed in the Missouri Gazette, 
and they appeared in that paper. From the lack of comment 
on this meeting by the Missouri press of that day, and from the 
general description of it and its officers, there is a strong prob- 
ability that it was little more than a mere township meeting 
and was not at all a numerous gathering. 

The next public meeting in Missouri assembled for the 
purpose of discussing the question of Congressional restriction 
was held on June 18th at Franklin, Howard County. ^^ A 
committee was appointed to draft resolutions against the "un- 
warrantable restrictions" on Missouri contemplated by Con- 
gress, and it was resolved that these resolutions be read at a 
public meeting to be held at Franklin on July 5th for the ap- 
probation of the people. 

The greatest publicity then possible was given this "Na- 
tional Anniversary" meeting on July 5th, and hundreds of 
citizens of the Boone's Lick Country were present in Franklin 
on that day.^' The committee appointed on June 18th reported 
to this body six resolutions, which were unanimously adopted. 
These resolutions voiced the strong protest of the Boone's Lick 
people against the proposed Congressional restriction on sla- 
very in Missouri. They emphasized the point that Missouri 
should have the exercise of her own municipal affairs, among 
which they placed "the establishment or exclusion of slavery." 
The resolutions were short and did not take up the considera- 
tion of slavery in se. It was resolved that these resolutions 
be printed in the Franklin "Missouri Intelligencer," the St. 
Louis newspapers, and the "National Intelligencer" of Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

The remarks of Henry Carroll made at this meeting are 
worthy of notice. Besides discussing the general constitutional 



"Mo. Inlell., June 25, 1819. 

"Ibid., July 9, 1819. So important was this meeting in tlie eyes of the 
editor of the Mo. Intell.. that the account of it crowded out even the advertise- 
ments for that weelc. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, IS 19. 89 

phases of the question of restriction and also some of the same 
points made by Benton in his speech in St. Louis of May 15th, 
Carroll said: "The real question is not the right of Congress 
to legislate in the manner proposed for the Territory, but for 
the State of Missouri. Once admitted, it is apparent that a 
convention might be assembled to alter or modify her consti- 
tution, and therefore to erase the obnoxious feature. But I do 
trust that those among whom I have cast my lot will not 'stoop' 
to conquer their rights, and will spurn to juggle for them in a 
game of duplicity, trick, or subterfuge." Carroll also said that 
he regretted the existence of slavery and that he would help 
wipe it out if it would not thereby check immigration from 
Southern kinsmen. \ From this short account of the meeting 
it is quite apparent that the sentiment in the Boone's Lick 
country on the question of restriction of slavery on the part 
of Congress was the same as that which prevailed in St. Louis 
and Montgomery counties^ 

On July 20, 1819, a public meeting of the citizens of Wash- 
ington county was held at the court house in Potosi, Missouri, 
in pursuance of public advertisements.^^ There were eight 
resolutions unanimously agreed to at this meeting. These 
resolutions were, however, practically identical with those 
adopted at the St. Louis meeting of May 15th, and therefore, 
will not be analyzed. ^^ 

J Within two weeks after the Potosi meeting a similar one 
was held by the citizens of the county of Ste. Genevieve at the 
court house in the town of Ste. Genevieve. ^^ This meeting was 
held on August 2, 1819, and elected General Henry Dodge 
president, and Judge John D. Cook secretary of the assembly. 
Both of these men were elected as delegates to the constitutional 
convention of Missouri in 1820, and later held the high positions 



'• An account of this meeting and the resolutions adopted appear in all the 
newspapers then printed in Missouri: Mo. Gaz., August 4, 1819; St. Louis Enq., 
August 4. 1819; Jackson (Missouri) Herald, August 20. 1819; Mo. IntelL, (Franklin) 
August 20. 1819. 

" Even the order of the two sets of resolutions is the same except that the 
eighth resolution adopted at the St. Louis meeting was omitted from the Potosi 
resolutions. 

'• An account of this meeting appears in the Jackson (Missouri) Herald, 
August 13, 1819. and in the St. Louis Enq., August 25. 1819. 



90 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

in both state and nation. The general tone of the seven resolu- 
tions adopted at this meeting, although quite similar to that of 
the resolutions of the other counties, differs from the latter in 
partaking more of a judicial and constitutional character. 
Nothing was said concerning slavery, stress being laid on the 
United States constitution and the treaty of cession. The only 
noteworthy resolution is the seventh, in which the Missouri 
Gazette was not mentioned with the other Missouri newspapers 
that were requested to print the resolutions of this meeting. 

At a meeting of the citizens of New Madrid county on Sep- 
tember 14, 1819, a set of six resolutions similar to those of Ste. 
Genevieve county was adopted. ^^ The third resolution adopted 
at New Madrid is the most noteworthy of all, although it con- 
tains no new declaration. Its language is as follows: "Re- 
solved, that we believe it to be a part of our absolute rights 
to form such a constitution for the government of our state as 
we shall deem proper, (provided the same be republican) with- 
out any control from the general government, or subject to any 
conditions imposed by them." These citizens viewed "with 
regret and astonishment the assumption of authority on the 
part of Congress to dictate" to them "in matters of internal 
policy;" and declared that they would "be admitted into the 
Union on an equal standing or not at all." The Missouri 
Gazette is again omitted from the list of newspapers that were 
requested to publish these resolutions. 

The last public meeting held in Missouri in 1819 which 
was convened expressly for the purpose of protesting against 
the attempted restriction of Congress, was in Cape Girardeau 
county. A notice of such a meeting to be held in Jackson, 
Missouri, on September 18th, is set forth in the Jackson Herald 
of September 4, 1819. Its purpose was to consider "the state 
of the county^^ and the restrictions attempted to be laid upon 
the future state of Missouri by the last Congress," etc. After 



>» Mo. Intell., November 6, 1819; Jackson Herald, September 18, 1819. The 
resolutions are given in full in these two papers but are not copied here owing to 
the fact that they include nothing new in the way of either argument or protest. 

"The author's notes on this quotation contain the abbreviation "Co."; it 
is possible that this word is "coxmtry" and not "county." 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 91 

a careful examination of the files of the Jackson Herald we 
failed to find an account of the proceedings of this meeting. 

Of great interest and value are the declarations and protests 
that the Mount Pleasant Baptist Association adopted at its 
meeting at Mount Zion, Howard county, on September 11-13, 
1819. These declarations were addressed "To the Senate and 
House of Representatives of the United States of America, in 
Congress Assembled," and were signed by Edward Turner as 
moderator and Geo. Stapleton as clerk. ^^ The Boone's Lick 
people protested against the restriction of slavery in Missouri 
by Congress, and declared it not only violated the constitution 
and cession of treaty, but also worked a hardship on the slaves. 
They said that "altho with Washington, Jefferson, & every 
other person," they regretted "the existence of slavery at all," 
and although they felt it their "duty to alleviate the situation 
of the unfortunate beings who" were its subjects among them; 
andl that although they looked "forward to the time when a 
happy emancipation" could "be effected, consistent with the 
principles of safety and justice," still they thought that the 
constitution and treaty of cession gave Missouri the right to a 
free admission without restriction. They also declared that 
they maintained that their right to slaves was "secured by the 
treaty of cession," and that "the question of slavery" was one 
which belonged exclusively to the state to decide.-" 



"Mo. Intell., October 1, 1819; Niks' Register. XVII. 200f. 

«• "The constitution does not admit slaves to be freemen: i[t] does admit 
them to be property, and guarantees to the master an ownership, which his fellow- 
citizens living in another state holding other principles cannot legislate from him; 
and as under the constitution, a sister state cannot emancipate those slaves who 
flee to its jurisdiction, and as the power Is not expressly delegated to congress, 
they cannot emancipate a slave, for the right is reserved to the people. And if 
they cannot emancipate a slave in a state, and it be lawful to hold slaves in this 
territory, congress neither have the right to emancipate our slaves whilst we live 
under a territorial form, nor under a state government, for by the treaty of ces- 
sion, congress are not only bound to admit us into the union, but are bound to 
protect us In the free enjoyment of our liberty and property — and therefore, not 
only our rights to admission into the union, but our right to hold slaves is secured 
by the treaty of cession, which is ratified by the President and Senate, and also 
by several acts of congress." 

"And believing that the policy proposed in the restriction will not only cause 
jealousy, foment discord, and shake the foundation of our government, but by 
confining them [the slaves] to one small district, will increase the task, augment 



92 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

It is worth noticing that had this association been as pro- 
slavery in sentiment as it professed to be anti-slavery, it could 
hardly have adopted a stronger set of resolutions favoring that 
institution than it did. These resolutions could scarcely have 
been welcomed in the anti-slavery section of the Nation as 
showing a sentiment in Missouri that favored slavery restriction, 
unless extracts were quoted and not the entire document. 

Closely related to the resolutions of public meetings in 
Missouri in 1819 as showing the sentiment here over the at- 
tempted restriction by Congress, are some of the toasts drunk 
at dinners and celebrations in the proposed State. Those 
toasts that bear on the questions of statehood and slavery reflect 
public opinion on these subjects and should be carefully con- 
sidered for the light they throw on this study. 

On May 29, 1819, the citizens of Franklin, Howard county, 
Missouri, gave a public dinner to Captain Nelson in honor of 
the arrival of the steamboat "Independence." ^^ Many toasts 
were drunk at this dinner and one of the speakers. General Duff 
Green, was later elected a delegate from Howard county to the 
constitutional convention. Following are several of these 
toasts: both their number and language show how concerned 
were the banqueters over statehood and related subjects. 

"The Missouri Territory — Desirous to be numbered with the States in con- 
stitutional principles — but determined never to submit to congressional usur- 
pation." 

"By Gen. D. Green — The Union — it is dear to us; but liberty is dearer. " 

"By Stephen Rector, Esq. — may the Missoiu-ians defend their rights, if 
necessary, even at the expense of blood, against the unprecedented restriction 
which was attempted to be imposed on them by the Congress of the U. States." 

"By N. Patten, Jr. — The Missouri territory — its future prosperity and 
greatness cannot be checked by the caprice by a few men in Congress, while it 
possesses a soil of inexhaustible fertility, abundant resources, and a body of in- 
telligent, enterprising, independent freemen." 

"By Maj. J. D. Wilcox — The citizens of Missouri — may they never become 
a member of the Union under the restriction relative to slavery." 



the pains and rivet the chains of the slaves, we warn you in the name of humanity 
itself to beware." 

"The time has arrived when it is possible to admit us into the union — we have 
all the means necessary for a state government. And believing the question of 
slavery is one which belongs exclusively to the state to deside [sic] on, we, on 
behalf of ourselves, our fellow citizens, and of the most solemn faith of the nation, 
claim admission into the union on the principles of the Federal Constitution — on 
an equal footing with the other states." 

«' Mo. Intell., June 4, 1819. This steamboat arrived at Franklin on May 
28th and holds the honor of being the first steamboat to make the run up the 
Missouri River. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 93 

At a dinner given on a like occasion at Chariton, Howard 
county, Missouri, on June 1st, at which Major J. S. Findlay 
presided and Colonel D. Green was vice-president, -^ the fol- 
lowing toasts were drunk: 

"The Missouri Territory — if not 'embarassed by too much regulation," It 
will soon form a distinguished member of the Union." 

^'The people of Missoiu-i — Keen to discern their rights, and firm to main- 
tain them: they acltnowledge no arbitrary right of restriction in the formation 
of their constitution." 

"By Capt. R. M. Desha, of the Marine corps. The Independent Missourians 
— may they always reject any improper, unconstitutional restrictions imposed 
upon them by the national legislature." 

At a public dinner given in St. Louis on June 10th, at which 
the principal leaders of the day were present, the following 
toasts were drunk.^^ 

"The members of the late Congress who supported the constitutional rights of 
the Territory of Missouri." 

"Mr. Scott, the Missouri Delegate in Congress — He spoke oiu" sentiments 
in defence of Missouri State rights." 

The Future State of Missoiu"i — Equal in sovereignty to the original states, 
or — nothing — 

Repeated cheerings — music. 

Bonaparte's march — reiterated discharges of artillery" etc. 

It was at the various Fourth of July celebrations held on 
July 5th, 1819, that the largest number of toasts on this subject 
were set forth by the press. In Howard county a large cele- 
bration was held at Franklin and of the sixteen set toasts and 
the twenty-two volunteer toasts, one-half related to the Mis- 
souri statehood bill.^^ One of the former was: 

"The People of Missouri — keen to discern their rights, and vigorous in the 
defence of them." 

Several of the latter were: 

"By Doct. J. J. Lowry — The People of the Missouri Territory; may they 
be as firm in resisting domestic usiu-pation; as they have been in repelling foreign 
violence." 

"By L. W. Boggs, Esq. — The Hon. John Scott, our Delegate to Congress; 
he has supported our rights; we will support him." 

"By Maj. Richard Gentry — Talmadge and Taylor — a dark room and straight 
jackets." 

"By Maj. T. Berry — The people of the Western and Southern States; they 
ought to view with jealousy the sinister designs of the Eastern states." 



"Mo. Intell., June 11, 1819. Both Findlay and Green were later elected 
delegates from Howard county. 

'> St. Louis Enq., June 23, 1819. General Rector was president of the day 
and was assisted by Colonel Chouteau, Major Christy, and Colonel Benton. 
=« Mo. Intell., July 16, 1819. 



94 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

In Montgomery county the celebration was held at Marthas- 
ville, and the toasts given were similar to the foregoing.^^ In 
St. Charles several celebrations were held which were noticed 
by the press, and the Missouri statehood question was prom- 
inently set forth in the toasts given. ^^ 

In St. Louis county at least three celebrations were held: 
two in the town of St. Louis; one in Saint Ferdinand township. 



» St. Louis Enq., July 14, 1819. Following are a few of the toasts given at 
this celebration: 

"The members of the late Congress — Who supported the constitution of the 
United States, and their treaty with France, in the discussion of the Missouri 
state Bill." 

"Mr. John Scott — Our member in congress, he supported the rights of his 
constituents with a manly dignity in the last session of Congress." 

"The people of Missom-i — They want no Congressional provision in forming 
their constitution, they will provide for themselves." 

"Messrs. Shaw and Holmes — Two Yankee republicans, they deserve well 
of their country, may they reform the apostate politicians of the north." 

"Messrs. Talmadge and Taylor — Politically insane, may the next Congress 
appoint them a dark room, a straight waistcoat and a thin water gruel diet." 

"The Sovereignty of the State — May seventy-eight men, inimical to it, 
clothed with the authority of the people, never meet again in Congress Hall." 

"The Citizens of oiu- Mother States — May they not be deterred from emi- 
gration to this land of Liberty and Plenty, In consequence of those unconstitu- 
tional restrictions attempted to be imposed on us in the late Congress, nor want 
confidence in oiu* firmness and integrity to resist such outrages upon oiu* rights 
and privileges." 

"The Fair of Missouri — May they take none to their arms, nor grace any 
with their charms but those who defend the rights of Missoiui." 

••.S(. Louis Enq., July 21, 1819; Mo. Gaz., July 14, 28, 1819. Following is 
a copy of one of these meetings: 

"Monroe, July 5th, 1819. 

Mr. Charless. 

As a writer stiling himself "A farmer of St. Charles coxmty," has said 
so much about the political sentiments of that people; I here send you three 
toasts, which were drank and cordially cheered by a number of respectable citi- 
zens of that county, at a celebration of the 4th instant. 

1st. The Senate of the U. States, magnanimous and great — They frowned 
on the violence of the lower house, and arrested them, when charging over the 
pales of the constitution to seize on the rights of Missouri. 

2d. The honorable Henry Clay, esq., speaker of the House of Representa- 
tives. — Firm and unshaken he arose against the majority, and pointed out to them 
the inconsistency of their attempting to legislate away the rights of any part 
of the commimity. 

3d. The territory of Missouri — whose rights have been so wantonly as- 
sailed. — May her grievances be redressed, and when seated among the sister 
states, may she forget the abuse they have offered her. 

Yours respectfully, 

JOHN LINDSEY." 



Popular Opivion in Missouri, 1819. 95 

One of the St. Louis celebrations was held at "Lucas' spring" 
and two of the toasts given were:^^ 

"The United States — they are the protectors of the territories — their natural 
friends — without distrust or jealousy we expect from them a due regard to our 
rights." 

"Our neighbor, the state of Illinois — homogeneous in its population, it has 
not been compelled to compromise or sport with the principles of justice." 

At the other celebration in the town of St. Louis, Colonel 
Auguste Chouteau was president, and several of the toasts 
given were: ^^ 

"The Next Congress — A sacred regard for the Constitution in preference to 
measures of supposed expediency, will ensure to them the confidence of the 
American people." — "Nineteen cheers. Yankee Doodle (music)." 

"The Territory of Missouri — With a population of near 100,000 souls, demands 
her right to be admitted into the union, on an equal footing with the original 
states." — "Nineteen cheers — 'Scott's o'er the border' " 

The toasts given at the celebration in Saint Ferdinand 
township reflect quite a different sentiment to the public meet- 
ing held there on June 5, 1819.^^ Following are several of the 
toasts given: 

"The Constitution of the United States — A safe guard to our Liberty." 
"Thirteen cheers." 

"The Territory of Missouri — May she be admitted into the Union on an equal 
footing with the original States, or not received in any other way." — "Drank 
standing up. — Twenty-two cheers." 

Later in the month of July, 1819, a public dinner was given 
at Franklin, Howard county, "to the officers attached to the 
expedition destined for the Yellow Stone." Two of the toasts 
drunk were:^** 

"The Territory of Missouri — to yield to a restriction or condition of what- 
ever nature at the will of Congress, would be parting with an attribute of sover- 
eignty." 

"The citizens of the Missouri territory; a population who understand their 
rights, and know how to maintain them." 



"Mo. Gaz., July 7, 1819. The springs were owned by Judge John B. C. 
Lucas, and the meeting held there was a rival of the Chouteau gathering of that 
day. It does not seem to have been so well attended as the other meeting, and 
it was not so strong in its protests against Congress. The reference to the homo- 
geneous character of Illinois' popxilation was a veiled attempt to make prominent 
the supposed divided or heterogeneous character of Missouri's population. 

** Mo. Gaz., July 14, 1819; St. Louis £n?., Jxily 14, 1819. These two toasts 
received the largest number of cheers. 

"St. Louis Enq., July 21, 1819. 

•• Mo. Intell., July 30. 1819. The dinner was given on the thirteenth of 
July. 



96 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

The last celebration of this character, recorded by the press, 
prior to the passage of the Enabling Act, was by the Irish of 
St. Louis on March 17, 1820.'^ One of the toasts drunk was: 

"The Missouri Territory — Her entitled rank among the states of the union, 
and a constitution of her own choice." 

Excepting the resolutions adopted at the various public 
meetings held in Missouri in 1819, perhaps the truest guide to 
the sentiment that obtained in this territory at that time re- 
garding the questions of Congressional restriction of slavery 
and incidentally of slavery itself, is the public presentments 
and remonstrances of that class of semi-official bodies known as 
Grand Juries. There are eight of these documents recorded in 
those newspapers of that day which have been preserved in 
the various libraries of the country. Seven of these present- 
ments were framed by the Grand Juries of the Circuit Courts 
for the counties of St. Louis, St. Charles, Howard, Jefferson, 
Lincoln, Montgomery, and Washington; and one by the Grand 
Jurors of the Superior Court of Missouri sitting for the Northern 
Circuit. It is thus seen that taken in connection with the 
public meetings heretofore described, we are enabled to give 
a fairly trustworthy account of the feeling in Missouri in nine 
counties of that territory in 1819. 

The first Grand Jury to return a presentment of this nature 
was that for St. Louis county, of the Circuit Court for the 
Northern Circuit of the Territory of Missouri. This present- 
ment was made on or about April 5, 1819, and is signed by eight- 
een members of the inquest and attested by the clerk of the 
court.^^ It protests against the restriction on Missouri at- 
tempted by the last Congress, as being contrary to the constitu- 
tion and the treaty of cession. And states: "Although we 

deprecate anything like an idea of disunion, , yet we 

feel it our duty to take a manly and dignified stand for our 
rights and privileges ....." 



«' Mo. Gaz., March 22, 1820. The date of the celebration is given as Feb- 
ruary 17th but it is quite probable that this is a typographical error, and should 
have been March 17th. 

" A copy of this presentment was printed in the Mo. Gaz., April 14, 1819, and 
in the St. Louis Enq., April 14, 1819. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 97 

Following this presentment a similar one was returned, 
April 30, 1819, by the Grand Jurors of the Superior Court of 
Missouri territory, sitting at St. Louis, for the Northern Cir- 
cuit.^' This latter document protests against the attempt made 
by Congress to dictate a provision in the constitution of Mis- 
souri however inconsiderable that provision might be; "but in 
the one proposed, the prohibition of the further introduction and 
continuance of slavery in the future state of Missouri," it believes 
that all the slave-holding states are vitally menaced and threat- 
ened with eventual destruction. The Grand Jurors further 
said that this act of Congress was contrary to the treaty of ces- 
sion and also "unfriendly to the slaves themselves." They 
concluded this protest by stating that they believed "it the 
duty of the people of Missouri to make known in the most public 
manner that they are acquainted with their own rights and are 
determined to maintain them" and recommended "a public 
meeting of the citizens at the Court House in St. Louis" on the 
loth of May next. 

All the Grand Jury presentments returned in 1819 on this 
subject after the two protests in April, 1819, at St. Louis, were 
in July. One of these was the presentment of the Grand Jury 
for the Circuit Court of St. Charles county, which was returned 
on July 6th.2^ It based its objection to the attempted re- 
striction by Congress on constitutional grounds and on the 
treaty of cession. 

The Howard county Grand Jury in their presentment of 
July 14th not only set forth the constitutional objections to the 
past action of Congress but declared: "It is not now the ques- 
tion whether the future admission of slavery be just or unjust — 
wise or unwise. That question will be met at another time and 
another place. We deny that Congress have any right to pass 
upon it. It belongs to the people of the future state of Mis- 
souri, and to them alone." It stated, however, that "The 



" A copy of this presentment was printed in the Mo. Gaz., May 12, 1819, 
and in the St. Louis Enq., May 5, 1819. Scharf, op. cit., I. 562, also contains 
extracts from this document. 

*' Mo. Intell., July 30, 1819; Mo. Gaz.. JiUy 14, 1819. 

M S— 7 



98 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Grand Jury feel no disposition to impugn the motives of the 
majority of the house of representatives." ^* 

The Grand Jury of Jefferson county also viewed with regret 
the attempt made by Congress to dictate an article in Missouri's 
Constitution prohibiting the future introduction of slavery in 
that state. They said: "That slavery is an evil we do not 
pretend to deny, but on the contrary would most cheerfully 
join in any measures to abolish it, provided those measures 
were not likely to produce greater evils to the people than the 
one complained of; but we hold the power of regulating this 
matter — of applying a remedy to this evil, to belong to the 
states and to the people, and not to Congress." They added: 
"The right of holding slaves, although it may not be a natural 
right, is one which is allowed by the federal constitution," etc. 
Their argument rested entirely on constitutional grounds and 
emphasized the right of a state to regulate its internal afifairs.-® 
^The Grand Jury of Lincoln county presented a very short 
protest against the attempted restriction which they considered 
contrary to the constitution. They expressed a hope that 
when the question of admitting Missouri was again agitated in 
Congress that "the true genuine and republican spirit of the 
Constitution" be consulted, and, they added, "have its in- 
fluence unimpeded by mistaken notions of philanthropy or the 
direful genius of usurpation." ^^ 

The Grand Jury for Montgomery county viewed "the 
restrictions attempted to be imposed on the people of the 
Missouri territory in the formation of a state constitution" as 
"unlawful, unconstitutional, and oppressive." They added 
that they hoped those restrictions would "never more be at- 
tempted; and if they should," they hoped "by the assistance of 



» Mo. Intell., July 16, 1819. A full copy of this presentment is found in tbe 
Intelligencer and is signed by J. S. Findlay, Benjamin H. Reeves, and eighteen 
others. These two men were later delegates to the constitutional convention of 
1820. This presentment was returned at Franklin on July 14, 1819. 

"Mo. Gaz., Augiist 11, 1819; Mo. Intell., August 27, 1819; Jackson Herald, 
August 20, 1819. The full text is given in all these newspapers. 

''Jackson Herald. August 28, 1819; St. Louis Enq.. August 18, 1819. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 99 

the genius of 76, and the interposition of Divine Providence, 
to find means to protect their rights." ^^ 

The Washington county Grand Jury protested against the 
attempted restriction as being as "unwarrantable as it was un- 
constitutional, and tended not only to abridge them of their 
precious rights as freemen to act and judge for themselves, but 
also to deprive them, in direct violation of the constitution of 
the United States, as of the treaty of cession, of the free en- 
joyment of a species of property which they lawfully held under 
the Spanish government." -' 

Excluding the resolutions adopted and toasts drunk at 
public meetings, and the presentments made by grand juries, 
the most valuable information preserved today that shows the 
sentiment in Missouri during 1819 and 1820 over the action of 
Congress and the question of slavery, is the editorials in the 
newspapers of that territory. Great as is the power of the 
press today, it is doubtful if there are three papers in Missouri 
who exert so great an influence on so large a proportion of this 
State's population as did the Missouri Intelligencer, Missouri 
Gazette, and St. Louis Enquirer during the years 1819 and 1820. 
This was, we believe, largely due to the fact that they, together 
with the Jackson Herald, Independent Patriot and St. Charles 
Missourian, held possession of the field of journalism in Mis- 
souri. But it was also the result of the ability and honesty of 
the editors.^" It should be remembered that the editorial 



"Jackson Herald, September 4, 1819; St. Louis Enq.. August 25, 1819. The 
foreman of this Grand Jury was James Talbott, later a delegate from this county 
to the constitutional convention of 1820. 

"St. Louis Enq., August 4, 1819; Mo., Gaz., August 4, 1819; Jackson Herald, 
August 20, 1819; Mo. Intell., August 20, 1819. 

"Joseph Charless, editor of the Gazette, was the pioneer of the Missouri 
press, having established and edited successfully the first newspaper printed west 
of the Mississippi River. After changes in name it today is issued as the St. 
Louis Republic. Charless was not only an able and honest editor but a fearless 
one as well; his high idealisn on the slavery question during the years 1819 and 
the first part of 1820 shows his remarkable independence. His farewell letter to 
his patrons {Missouri Gazette, September 13, 1820) is his own spirit translated 
into words. 

Thomas Hart Benton was one of the editors of the Enquirer, and his demo- 
cratic nobility and resourcefullness has rarely been equalled. No statesman of 
any land ever followed his own lights more unswerveingly and tried harder to 
perfect those lights than Benton. No other statesman in Missouri history and 
perhaps in the history of this Nation, excepting Washington, ever had a more 



100 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

then held a more important and a more prominent place in the 
paper than it does today. At least it occupied more relative 
space and concentrated on fewer subjects.^^ Even at that early 
day jealousies existed between editors. The papers printed 
outside St. Louis were free from these, but the Gazette and the 
Enquirer were bitter rivals and pursued different editorial 
policies.'^ However, regarding the slavery restriction clause 
attempted to be imposed by Congress on Missouri, all the news- 
papers voiced their protests in the strongest terms. It was 
over the election of the delegates and the question of slavery 
itself that the Gazette wandered from the fold and maintained 
an attitude as brave and independent as was possible, consider- 
ing the strength of its foes and the weakness of its position. 



absolute control over the voters of his constituency without being aided by some 
kind of a machine than Benton did. His integrity was never questioned, and few 
were daring enough to challenge his judgments in his presence. 

Nathaniel Patton, one of the editors of the Afissouri Intelligencer, was an 
able and sincere writer. His editorials are sound and their influence must have 
been great. He reached the western settlements of Missouri, and published the 
only paper in the Boone's Lick Country. His was the first paper published west 
of the Mississippi River outside the city of St. Louis. After several changes of 
place of publication and in name, it is today issued in Columbia, Missouri, as the 
Columbia Herald-Statesman. 

Little is known regarding the ability and power of the editors of the Jackson 
Herald and Independent Patriot, and of the St. Charles Missourian. The Jackson 
Herald did not appear until the summer of 1819; the St. Charles Missourian ap- 
peared in the spring of 1820. 

" The Missouri newspaper of 1819 and 1820 contained the following general 
subjects: foreign news, national news together with copies of speeches delivered 
in Congress, such State news as was of the most public nature, editorials, numerous 
articles by individuals, letters, a few literary articles (clipped), and advertisements. 
The sensational and the personal were omitted except duels. Births, marriages, 
and obituaries were stated in two or three lines and frequently in one line of small 
print. As the "boiler-plate " news was then unknown, the paper was "set up" 
at home. 

" The Gazette opposed most of the leading politicians of St. Louis during 
1819 and 1820 and was in turn opposed by them. It also opposed John Scott, 
Missouri's Territorial Delegate in Congress, and some of its criticisms of Scott 
appear rather "far-fetched" today. (C/. Mo. Gaz.. March 10, 1819). Scott in 
his turn refused to make any communications to the Gazette. {Cf. Mo. Gaz., 
January 15, 1819.) On the whole, Charless appears to have taken the unpopular 
side of the slavery question. He seems to have realized this, and hedged more 
and more during the summer of 1820. 

The Enquirer warmly espoused and ably championed the popular side of 
slavery, and under the guidance of Benton never let pass an opportunity to score 
on its rival. 

The rivalry between these two sheets finally degenerated to physical violence 
and Charless was assaulted on May 10. 1820, by Isaac N. Henry, one of the edi- 
tors of the Enquirer. {Mo. Gaz., May 17, 1820). 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 101 

In the spring of 1819 the Gazette began its fiercest attacks 
on Congress. On April 7th, it said: "It has been reserved for 
the House of Representatives of the present Congress to commit 
the most gross and barefaced usurpation that has yet been 
committed. They have ingrafted on the bill for our admission 
into the Union a provision that 'the State Constitution shall 

prohibit the further introduction of slavery; ' Bear in 

mind, fellow-citizens, that the question now before us is not 
whether slavery shall be permitted or prohibited in the future 
State of Missouri, but whether we will meanly abandon our 
rights and suffer any earthly power to dictate the terms of our 
Constitution." ^' Although opposing the attempted restric- 
tion of Congress, the Gazette fearlessly opened its columns to 
those writers in Missouri who differed from it on this point, 
even though by so doing it lost both influence and subscribers, 
and was bitterly criticised. In support of its position, it said: 
"On the subject of the Missouri state bill, we have always be- 
lieved, and still believe, that it can be clearly proved by sound 
and logical argument, that the conditions attempted to be an- 
nexed, are unconstitutional; but although we believe this, we 
will never close our pages to a fair and liberal discussion of the 
subject. Our motto is 'Truth without Fear.' " '^ It was only 
natural that the Enquirer should take advantage of this atti- 
tude of Charless's especially since Benton was never known to 
have either sympathy or patience for an opponent. The 
Gazette replied to the Enquirer on June 16, 1819, as follows: 
"For ourselves we wish but one sentiment did prevail, which 
we conceive the correct one, viz.: that Congress have no con- 
stitutional right to impose the restrictions." ^^ Although op- 
posing a slavery restriction on Missouri by Congressional 



"Scharf. op. cit., I. 561. 

" Mo. Gaz., May 12, 1819. 

" The Gazette was kept busy at this time in denying its approval of restricting 
slavery, and was even charged with emancipation sympathies. In 1820 it openly 
came out in favor of slavery restriction and from his editorials Charless appears 
to have strongly opposed that institution. During 1819 he hid behind his motto 
"Truth without Fear," and let all writers have space and in answering an editorial 
challenge his subterfuge argument was his opposition to Congressional restriction, 
which he always managed to bring to the front as an answer to any charge of 
slavery heresy. It is in the Gazette only that one ineets with anti-slavery and slavery 
restriction articles. 



102 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

action, the Gazette did favor some kind of a slavery restriction 
section being incorporated in the proposed state constitution, 
and came out openly during the spring of 1820 in favor of those 
candidates for delegates whose views on this subject coincided 
with its position.^^ On May 3, 1820, the last day of the election 
of delegates the Gazette contained this daring editorial together 
with a list of the candidates and their position on the slavery 
question: "Fellow Citizens, Today is the last opportunity 
that is left to you to give your voice in forming a State Con- 
stitution. You are now called upon for the last time to say 
whether aristocracy and tyranny shall prevail — whether a few 
nabobs selected by a secret caucus shall be forced upon you as 
proper persons to form a constitution for your government, or 
whether you will exercise the proper persons to frame your 
mode of government. You are now called upon for the last 
time to declare whether yourselves, and your children, to the 
latest generations, will be cursed with slavery,^'' the evil and in- 
justice of which is acknowledged by every one; or whether you 
will elect men who will take measures gradually to extinguish 
the evil, without interfering with the existing rights of property, 
or injuring the growth of the country. We entreat all those 
who have not yet voted to assert the dearest right of freemen. 
No question can be so important. Lose the present opportunity 
and no other will ever arrive. Your destiny is fixed by the 
result of this day's vote," etc. etc. As final evidence of Char- 
less's position on these two subjects, is the following extract 
from his farewell letter of September 13, 1820, to his "Patrons" 
on his retirement from the editorship of the Gazette: "It has 
been said that the Gazette advocated the restriction of Missouri 
by Congress. The base fabricator of this charge is defied to 
prove it. Examine the files and they will be found to pursue 
one uniform course. Open to all communications, the editor 
has never hesitated to state his opposition to the interference 
of Congress, but still felt desirous that some limitation should 
be put by the People, to the importation of slaves.-''^ 



'• Cf. Mo. Gaz., May 3. 1820. 

" Our italics. 

» Mo. Gaz., September 13, 1820. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 103 

In striking contrast to the few editorials which appeared 
in the Gazette in 1819 opposing Congressional restriction of 
slavery in Missouri, are the great number found in the Enquirer. 
On March 31, 1819, the latter paper declared that Congress 
would never impose the restriction on Missouri, but if it had 
"the people of the United States would have witnessed a spe- 
cimen of Missouri feeling in the indignant contempt with which 
they would have trampled the odious restriction under their feet, 
and proceeded to the formation of a Republican Constitution 
in the fulness of the peoples power" etc.^^ /When the various 
public meetings protested and the grand juries of Missouri 
returned presentments during 1819 against the action of Con- 
gress, the Enquirer contained many editorials commending the 
action of these bodies.'*" /The Enquirer affirmed that, although 
there might be many in St. Charles county who opposed slavery 
on principle, "no citizen is known in St. Louis who will support" 
the statement that the citizens in the latter place were "divided 
in their opinion about the constitutional powers of Congress to 
prohibit slavery among" them.*^ That paper strongly attacked 
the Gazette for its position, and especially the slavery restriction 
and anti-slavery articles, written by individuals, which were 
printed in the rival sheet.''^ On July 21, 1819, the Enquirer 
was aroused over hearing that private petitions praying the next 
Congress to abolish slavery in Missouri were being circulated 

'» St. Louis Enq., March 31. 1819. On April 21. 1819, in an editorial the 
Enquirer said it had discovered that "A St. Charles Farmer" who had been writing 
slavery restriction articles in the Gazette lived in St. Louis and thought that his 
writings would probably circulate in New England papers as evidence of the 
sentiment in Missouri. 

"St. Louis Enq., May 5, 12. 19. July 14, Aug. 18. 1819. 
i>^S<. Louis Enq., June 9, 1819. Following is a copy of the entire editorial: 

"Missouri Slave Question. — The Editors of the National Intelligencer be- 
lieve that the citizens of this place are divided in tlieir opinion about the con- 
stitutional powers of Congress to prohibit slavery among us. They were naturally 
led into that belief by the face of the public papers. It was a consequence spoken 
of by the citizens of this place, as the certain effect of publications made in a paper 
in tills town. Yet what is the fact? Are we divided in opinion upon tliat point? 
We confidently affirm that no citizen is known in St. Louis who will support the 
affirmative of the question. As to the publications they are the work of men 
newly arrived, who would not be qualifled, either by residence or the payment 
of a tax to vote, in an election, and who with all their impudence have shame 
enough to endeavor to conceal their names, to avoid the public contempt." 

«' St. Louis Enquirer, June 23, 1819. 



104 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

by non-slaveholders and that these petitions were being swollen 
by the signatures of "boys and stripUngs." And the editor of 
the Enquirer protested vehemently against an Edwardsville 
(Illinois) newspaper stirring up the Missouri slavery question, 
and said that this was purely a domestic concern of Missouri, 
that actual slavery existed in Illinois, and that the citizens of 
the two states should not be thus "set against each other." ^ 
The attitude of the Enquirer was one of absolute opposition to 
Congressional action in restricting slavery in Missouri, and 
when the election of delegates took place in 1820, it favored 
those who opposed any restriction of slavery in the new State. 1 

The Jackson Herald contained no editorials of special value 
on this point, but its attitude was also one of opposition to any 
slavery restriction being applied in Missouri whether imposed 
by Congress or by the convention. This paper was not a very 
strong sheet in its editorials. It tried to maintain a fair and 
independent attitude on most questions that arose, especially 
on the rivalry between the Si. Louis Gazette and the Enquirer 
and in the bitter fights over public men and their acts.** 

The Missouri Intelligencer bitterly opposed the action of 
Congress in attempting to impose a slavery restriction on Mis- 
souri and said: "This subject appears to have excited a general 
burst of indignation from the people of this territory. It is a 
question in which Congress have no right to interfere, and to 
which we as the people will never submit. The restriction at- 
tempted to be imposed upon us by the seventy-eight members of 
the House of Representatives who voted for it, were those ex- 
clusively from the eastern states.. They view with a jealous eye 
the march of power westward, and are well aware the preponder- 
ance will soon be against them; therefore they have combined 



••"Private Petitions — For a long time we have been informed that private 
petitions were carried about in several parts of the territory praying the next 
congress to abolish slavery in the Missouri territory. They are said to be circulated 
chiefly by persons who own no slaves themselves, and who are very willing to ap- 
pear generous at the expense of others. In promoting their object, and to multiply 
signatures, it is said that boys and striplings are got to put down their names, 
without the addition of their ages; and by such contrivances as these the authentic 
expression of public sentiment in this territory by Grand Juries, Public Meetings, 
Toasts of Public companies &c. is to be invalidated and overborne in the next 
congress." (St. Louis Enq., July 21, 1819.) 

** Jackson Herald. February 26, 1820. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 105 

against us; but let them pause before they proceed further, or 
the grave they are preparing for us, may be their own sepul- 
chre.'"'* On January 28, 1820, it said: "The most extra- 
ordinary and unprincipled means are [being used] using by the 
eastern people to prevent the citizens of this territory from 
enjoying equal privileges with those of other states." It 
further said that the proposed compromise of certain members 
of Congress to separate by a line running west the slave and free 
territory west of the Mississippi river "evinces that humanity 
is not the sole object of those who brought forward the re- 
striction." ^® This newspaper not only opposed slavery re- 
striction in Missouri by Congress but set forth those articles de- 
fending slavery in Missouri which had appeared in other news- 
papers. One article in particular taken from a Philadelphia 
paper and which the Missouri Intelligencer called "a very able 
and ingenius article — on the Missouri Question" strove to 
prove the following propositions: (1) that "the holding of 
slaves is defencible by the law of nature;" (2) that "slavery is 
so by the law of God;" (3) that "slavery is so by the municipal 
laws of the great majority of the civilized nations, ancient and 
modern;" (4) that "slaves are property;" (5) that "negroes 
have no right to object to negro slavery;" (6) that "Congress 
has not the right to prohibit slavery in the Missouri territory; 
(7) that "under present circumstances it is not expedient to 
prohibit it." *^ The Missouri Intelligencer from its first issue 
in April, 1819, to the spring of 1820, was almost entirely taken 
up with the "Missouri Question," and not only contained in- 
dividual articles and editorials but copies of the speeches re- 
ported in Congress.^* On April 15, 1820, it printed in full the 



"Mo. Intell., (editorial) May 9, 1819. It proceeds as follows: "As well 
might they arrest the course of the ocean that washes their barren shores, as to 
check our future growth. Emigration will continue with a jiant [sic] stride until 
the wilderness shall be a wilderness no more; but in its stead will arise flourishing 
towns, cultivated farms, & peace, plenty and happiness smile on the land. Let 
those who are raised by the voice of the people to watch over and protect their 
rights and liberties, beware how they abuse so sacred a trust, lest they find in every 
injured freeman the spirit of a Hampden rise and hurl them from their posts." 

"Ibid., (editorial) January 28, 1820. 

" Mo. Intell., Feb. 18, 1820. The article was written by one who said he 
was "no friend to slavery." (Our italics.) 

"C/. Mo. Intell., May 7, 1819; March 4, 11, 18, 25, 1820. 



106 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Enabling Act passed by Congress, and remarked in its editorial 
column: "The names of those who voted in favor of the rights 
of Missouri should be handed down to posterity as examples 

to future legislators By their firmness, independence 

and patriotism, we have been rescued from degradation, and 
the constitution from violation." 

The most extensive though perhaps the least valuable 
source of information showing the sentiment in Missouri over 
the slavery restriction attempted by Congress and incidentally 
over slavery itself is the various articles written over noms de 
guerre, which appeared in the Missouri newspapers of that 
day. These articles are so numerous that only the briefest 
summary of them is possible. It is hardly an exaggeration to 
state that few issues were run off the press from April 1819 to 
April 1820 which did not contain remarks on the "Missouri 
Question." These articles covered the entire field of this 
question both pro and con, and some took up the discussion of 
slavery as an institution in se and also with regard to its appli- 
cation in Missouri. They naturally divide themselves into 
two general groups: those favoring, and those opposing the 
attempt of Congress to impose a slavery restriction on Missouri. 

The pro-Congress articles appeared in only one newspaper 
in Missouri Territory, the Missouri Gazette, and logically were 
anti-slavery in tone and argument. If all the noms de guerre 
under these articles represented different writers, then the total 
number of pro-Congress Missouri authors was only six!*^ Some 



<» The most pronounced and ablest of these was one who signed himself "A 
Farmer of St. Charles Coimty." His communications appeared in the Missouri 
Gazette on the following dates: April 7, 21, May 5. 19, June 9, 30, 1819. This 
author wrote a series of five letters advocating restriction of slavery either by 
Congress or by Missouri, and also several replies to criticisms of his articles. He 
declared that the people in his neighborhood were opposed to the further intro- 
duction of slavery in Missouri, and said that slavery was admitted to be an evil 
and a curse even by its advocates. He considered that this curse would be 
strengthened if allowed to spread and said that if Congress did not restrict it in 
Missouri then "we will try to do it ourselves." As regards the constitutional 
right of Congress to do this he continued: "Let none imagine that I believe 
Congress does not possess the constitutional right to prohibit the introduction 
of slavery. I have no doubts on the subject. If slavery is anti-republican, 
(and who but a madman will deny that it is?) Congress have the right to refuse 
their sanction to any constitution that tolerates it." {Mo. Gaz., May 5, 1819. 
3d Letter dated April 24. 1819.) In his fourth letter (Mo. Gaz., May 19, 1S19. 
letter dated May 1. 1819) the "Lawyer junto" of St. Louis is first mentioned. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 107 

of these writers lay stress on the evils of slavery as an institu- 
tion and the need of restricting it either by Congressional or 
local action ; ^"/others, while recognizing the evils of slavery 
and while favoring either emancipation or restriction, empha- 
sized the desirability and the good policy of waiting patiently 
for Congress to act, and defended that body as acting for the 
general welfare of the country .^^ 

Although all pro-Congress articles were logically pro- 
restriction and anti-slavery, there were a few anti-Congress 
writers who also were opposed to slavery and favored restricting 
it. The number of writers that took these latter positions is, 
however, almost negligible.^^ The circular of John Scott, 
Missouri's Territorial Delegate, to the people of Missouri does 
not properly belong to this class of writings since while depre- 
cating slavery it still stated that a restriction of it would be 



This body, composed of the leading lawyers of St. Louis, favored slavery and 
wielded an almost invincible strength during this period. It was bitterly op- 
posed by the Gazette and was frequently referred to as the "lawyer junto." 

»• Cf. Note 49. See also in the Missouri Gazette, May 26, 1819, an article 
by "An American," which is a strong emancipation piece. A very sarcastic 
article written by "A Republican Slavedriver" on the excessive use of grand 
jury presentments and the beneficent character of slavery appeared in the Gazette, 
Sept. 18, 1819. A restrictionist article by "A Republican of the Jefifersonian 
Schotfl" appeared in the Gazette Feb. 23, 1820. 

i/ •' A series of four articles by "Paciflcus" appeared in the Gazette, May 12, 
19, 26 and June 2, 1819, along this line, and, while favoring the Talmadge amend- 
ment and either the abolition or restriction of slavery, these articles urged Mis- 
souri to patiently wait for Congressional action. A similar article by "Cato" ap- 
peared in the Gazette, June 16, 1819, which, while favoring emancipation, thought 
there was little to be feared of Congress not leaving this in the hands of Missouri. 
This latter article is not a real pro-Congress argument although the writer would 
hardly have grieved or criticised if Congress had fastened a slavery restriction 
on Missouri. 

" A writer under the nom-de-guerre of "One of the People," whose articles 
appeared in the St. Louis Enquirer, April 4, 1819, said: "I do not think slavery 
justifiable or beneficial; but it is for ourselves, and not for Congress to decide 
that question;" etc. Another writer under the nom-de-guerre of "A Citizen of > 

Missoiu"i" said: "I shall attempt, Mr. Editor, to convince those who read these ^ 
remarks, that the proposed resolutions were unconstitutional; that, although 
slavery is anti-republican and unbecoming a great nation of freemen, still that it 
is allowed by the Constitution of the United States, and being so, that Congress 
have no right to determine about it." (Mo. Gaz., April 28, 1819; cf. Also Mo. 
Gaz., March 24, 1819). 

The above articles, together with the one written by "A Citizen of Missouri," 
which appeared in the Enquirer July 21, 1819, were the most able on this phase 
of the question and were almost in a class to themselves. 



108 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

"unfriendly to the slaves themselves to confine them to the 
south." " 

The mass of articles written in 1819 and 1820 in Missouri 
by those who protested against Congressional restriction of 
slavery would fill a volume. These articles, however, either 
refrained from a discussion of slavery or advanced arguments for 
its unrestricted continuance.^* There were some that dealt in 
such generalities as the "evil" or "curse of slavery" and then 
proceeded to show how the mitigation of this "curse" would be 
accomplished by leaving slavery unrestricted in Missouri. These 
latter articles were simply counterparts of some of the speeches 
delivered in Congress by many of the Representatives from 
even the southern states, and indicate nothing except that 
slavery in 1819 and 1820 was generally regarded on both sides 
of the Mason and Dixon line as an evil. The north wanted 
this evil abolished or at least lessened by restricting the new 
slave territory; the south desired or pretended to desire to miti- 
gate it by extending slave territory. For one merely to have 



"Mo. IntelL, July 16, 1819. FoUowiag is an extract from this circular of 
Scott's: 

"I regret as much as any person can do the existence of slavery in the United 
States; I think it wrong in itself, nor on principle would I be understood as ad- 
vocating it; but I trust I shall always be the advocate of the people's right to 
decide on this question, as on all others, for themselves, leaving to their own 
wisdom and forecast the adoption of such a Constitution, and the enaction of 
such laws as they shall consider best comforts with their prosperity and happiness. 
I consider it, not only unfriendly to the slaves themselves to confine them to the 
south, but wholly incompetent for Congress to interfere upon the subject, being 
a piece of domestic policy which the state of Missouri has a clear right to decide 
for herself, as every other state in the Union has done." 

" A few of the articles of this nature appeared over the following noms-de- 
guerre In the Missouri Gazette April 7, 1819, "Hampden;" April 14th "Sydney"; 
April 21, "Hampden," "Gracchus," "A Missourian;" April 28th, "Hampden;" 
May 5th, "Hampden;" May 12th, "Sydney;" June 16th, "Hampden;" June 
SOth, "C." Many others were also printed taking a position of disapproval of 
Congressional restriction; these either advocated slavery without any restriction 
whatever or were silent on that question. 

In the St. Louis Enquirer many similar articles appeared of which two were 
over the following noms-de-guerre: May 19, 1819, "A St. Louis Mechanic;" 
June 16th, "A Citizen of St. Louis," etc. etc. 

And, in the Missoiu"i InleUigencer some of the articles appeared over the 
following noms-de-guerre: April 30, 1819, "Epaminondas," "A Farmer;" May 
7th, "Epaminondas;" May 21st, "Epaminondas;" May 28th, "Atahualpa;" 
July 21st, "Epaminondas;" July 30th, "A Spectator;" December 3d, "Cato;" 
January 21, 1820, "Cato;" February 1st, "Cato;" February 18th, "A Citizen." 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 109 

stated in 1819 or 1820 that he regarded slavery as an evil, is 
of Httle consequence in itself. 

This concludes our detailed examination of those five 
original sources of historical information that reveal the senti- 
ment in Missouri from April 1819 to April 1820 on the question 
of the restriction of slavery as attempted by Congress. The 
main question under consideration here has been the attitude 
of the inhabitants of Missouri Territory over the attempted 
restriction of slavery by Congress, but there has also been 
brought to light, as incidental to the main issue, the great, if 
not more important, question of slavery itself. As has been 
stated, the next chapter deals with the slavery proposition, 
and it was only to prevent a duplication in the use of source 
material that slavery was permitted to creep into this one. It 
must be emphasized, however, that during 1819 slavery became 
an issue in Missouri and that it was a real if not a greater casus 
belli of the inhabitants of this territory in their opposition to 
Congressional restriction, the apparent declarations, based on 
constitutional grounds, of some prominent men and public 
meetings to the contrary notwithstanding.^^ 

The inhabitants of Missouri in 1819 appear to have been 
almost a unit in their opposition to any restriction being imposed 
by Congress on slavery in their proposed state. *^ Only one 
minor public gathering and perhaps six nom-de-guerre writers 
favored Congressional restriction." An examination of the 

•» The editor of Niles' Register seems to have appreciated this point. On 
October 2, 1819, (Niks' Register XVII, 71.) he said in part: "If the people of Mis- 
souri are contending for the abstract question, as to their right to admit slavery, 
if they please, there is no one, we presume, that would refuse to listen patiently 
to a discussion of the merits of the question; but if they are thus operated upon 
from a desire to hold slaves; to extend this ciu-sed blot on our country over the 
immense regions west of the Mississippi; and give an almost boundless expanse 
to the anti-republican principles which belong to it, and thereby render more 
and more difficult any plan which a more enlightened posterity may devise to 
obliterate this stain on the nation — it is impossible that any humane man can 
wish success to tlielr efforts," etc. etc. 

" The foregoing statement is based on the source material already examined. 
Cf., Perkins and Peck, Annals of the West, 769. second ed., 1850. 

•' The only public meeting in Missouri in 1819 that adopted resolutions 
favoring Congressional restriction was held in St. Ferdinand township, St. Louis 
county, on June 5th. Although this meeting was strongly pro-Congress in senti- 
ment, it is important to notice that just one month later at a Fourth of July cele- 
bration held in the same township, all the toasts drunk were anti-Congresa in 



110 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

resolutions adopted at public meetings, toasts drunk at public 
dinners and celebrations, presentments of Grand Juries, edi- 
torials, and scores of articles written over noms-de- guerre shows 
conclusively that Missouri was overwhelmingly opposed to any 
Congressional restriction of slavery. ^^ The chief arguments 
advanced for this position were based: (1) on the United States 
Constitution; (2) on the treaty of cession; (3) on the grounds of 
policy and interest; and (4) on the dictates of humanity and 
the welfare of the slave. 

Practically all anti-Congress literature in Missouri set 
forth the constitutional reason. This argument was advanced in 
two ways, either of which could be stated without taking up a dis- 
cussion of slavery. First it was urged that the Constitution gave 
Congress the power to admit a State into the Union but did not 
give that body the power to impose any restriction on a state, 
except that its government should be republican in character, 
and since in their eyes slavery was not an anti-republican in- 
stitution, having existed before and after the formation of the 
nation, it did not fall within the constitutional restriction. 
Secondly, it was declared that Congress was a body of delegated 
powers, and since the constitution had not given Congress the 
authority to regulate slavery in a state, that power was entirely 
within the sphere of state action and was subject to the "in- 
ternaV or ''municipal" control of the State. The argument 
based on the treaty of cession was also advanced in practically 
all of the Missouri anti-Congress literature of 1819. It de- 
clared that since in the treaty of cession the United States had 
guaranteed to protect the property of the citizens of the Louis- 
iana Purchase, therefore Congress could not place a restriction on 
slavery in Missouri, because slaves had been held as property in 



language. Either there was a change in sentiment, or, what Is more probable, 
the first meeting did not represent the wishes of the inhabitants of even that 
township. 

The smaller Fourth of July gathering at Lucas' Spring in St. Louis was not 
strictly pro-Congress in sentiment but rather had confidence in a final happy 
solution of the Missouri question by the national legislature, 
y' '• It is of interest to notice the following which appeared In Niles' Register, 
October 2, 1819 (XVII. 72.): "The grand juries and other public bodies of the 
territory of Missoxu-1, are loud in denunciations of the proceedings had at the last 
session of Congress, concerning the admission of slavery into the proposed State." 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. Ill 

Louisiana prior to and after 1803. The third and fourth set of 
arguments involved a discussion of slavery, and we will consider 
them in their proper place. The large mass of anti-Congress 
literature did not, however, contain reasons which brought for- 
ward or made prominent the slavery question itself. In fact 
many of the anti-Congress articles expressly stated that the 
question under consideration in no way involved the discussion 
of slavery but was one which rested entirely on a legal basis. 

The sentiment in Missouri in 1819 regarding slavery, as 
revealed in the various sources of historical information already 
examined, is not so clearly defined. As a general proposition it 
may be stated that throughout the territory slavery as an in- 
stitution was deprecated and was regarded as a great evil, even 
as a curse. This attitude of the inhabitants of Missouri towards 
the institution did not, as one might logically conclude, carry 
with it a desire for either emancipation or restriction. It was a 
position that was reflected in many of the speeches of even the 
southern members of Congress, who at the same time strove 
hard to prevent restrictions being placed on slavery. They 
were willing, in most cases, to waive the moral issue since the 
ark of the Constitution was deemed strong enough to repel any 
attack along this line. / History and law favored slavery; these 
combined with the political and economic strength of that in- 
stitution were so powerful as to overcome the moral opposition 
to it. /Although constitutional and economic arguments favor- 
ing the restriction of slavery were advanced both in and out of 
Congress, the stronghold of the restrictionists rested on a moral 
foundation. On the other hand, there were some advocates of 
slavery who also used the moral argument as well as the con- 
stitutional and historical, but there were few. 

In Missouri in 1819 the six anonymous writers and the 
single public meeting that favored the attempted slavery re- 
striction of Congress, were opposed to slavery. There were 
also three or four nom-de-giierre writers who while opposing 
Congressional restriction also opposed slavery and favored 
State restriction. Including several editorials in the Missouri 



112 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Gazette, these few articles are the total amount of anti-slavery 
literature that appeared in Missouri Territory in 1819.^' 

On the other hand there were a number of articles and reso- 
lutions that deprecated the existence of slavery, regarded it as 
a curse and as an evil, and some even professed to favor a 
national emancipation, while at the same time these same 
articles opposed any restriction being placed on slavery in Missouri, 
whether by Congress or by the state. The arguments used 
were based on policy and interest, and on the grounds of hu- 
manity and the general welfare of the slaves. These arguments 
were especially directed against Congressional restriction but 
are of equal force as indicating the general anti-restriction posi- 
tion of the authors advancing them. The general method of 
reasoning was: first, that restriction of slavery would tend to 
stop southern immigration into Missouri if not put an end to it 
altogether; would perhaps produce greater evils than already 
existed as restriction approached emancipation; and would be 
an unjust interference with established property rights, and a 
direct injustice to those who had immigrated with their slaves 
to Missouri thinking slavery would be unrestricted here: second, 
that restriction of slavery in Missouri if enforced would work 
an injustice to the slaves by keeping them in the crowded slave 



'•Ferdinand Ernst, a German, in his "Travels in Illinois in 1819" came to 
St. Louis on July 27th, and in a letter dated July 30th, Edwardsville, Illinois, 
wrote, however, as follows: "This city is the seat of the territorial government 
of the Missouri territory. The motion to be advanced to a state and to have its 
own constitution met with difficulties in Congress, since Congress wished to im- 
pose the condition that slavery should be abolished in the state of Missouri. Now 
one finds most every day in the newspapers paragraphs concerning this subject, 
the majority of which are almost always zealously opposed to the introduction 
of slavery in the state of Missoiu-i. Everywhere much Is being written now 
concerning the possibility of getting rid of slavery as an acknowledged evil in the 
entire compass of the free states, so that people in general actually entertain the 
hope of seeing even the southern states soon freed from this plague." (Illinois 
State Historical Library Publications No. 8, pp. 153-154.) The letter from which 
the foregoing extract was taken is dated "Edwardsville, July 30, 1820." There 
was either a mistake made by the writer as regards the year or a typographical 
error in this respect, since it is the only letter dated 1820 and undoubtedly should 
have been 1819. 

The explanation of Ernst's statement, which is contrary to the actual facts, 
may be that he was influenced by the anti-slavery articles in the Edwardsville 
(Illinois) Spectator: certainly his visits in Missouri Territory was too short for 
him to have gained any reliable information relating to the subject he commented 
on. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri, 1819. 113 

districts of the south, where their condition was worse and their 
hardships greater than farther north, and would not lessen the 
number of slaves but only diminish slave territory; and if not 
enforced, it would result in as little permanent good as it had 
in Illinois. 

It may be definitely stated that during 1819, i. e., after the 
adjournment of Congress in that year, the sentiment in Mis- 
souri on the question of statehood. Congressional restriction 
of slavery, and slavery as an institution, expressed itself in a 
united stand of protest against the failure of Congress to admit 
Missouri; in a practically united front of opposition, based 
mainly on constitutional grounds, to any Congressional restric- 
tion of slavery in Missouri ; in a more or less general condemnation 
of slavery in the abstract, wherever that institution was men- 
tioned, and a politic course of comparative silence regarding its 
restriction by Missouri. 

There are several subjects in this connection that could 
have been discussed with much interest, but as they rest so 
entirely on an academic basis their historical value would be 
of small enduring worth. For example, to what extent was 
Missouri's opposition in 1819 to Congressional restriction due 
to the efforts of her leading men and slave owners? Or, to what 
extent did the sentiment of Missourians on Congressional re- 
striction force her leaders to declare against it? Was Missouri's 
condemnation of slavery in the abstract a declaration of policy 
in order to propitiate certain northern Congressmen, or was it 
an expression based on conviction? Would Missouri have 
framed a constitution and set in working a state government, 
as Benton and others threatened, if Congress had not passed 
an enabling act in 1820? How much did the Spanish land 
claim policy of the United States Congress influence the in- 
habitants of Missouri in their opposition to that body? Data 
regarding some of these queries have already been set forth: 
new facts will be found in the next chapter. 



M S— 8 



CHAPTER IV. 
POPULAR OPINION IN MISSOURI IN 1820. 

ELECTION OF DELEGATES. 

The news of the passage of the Missouri Enabling Act 
spread quickly over the country; Thomas Hemstead was the 
messenger to Missouri. He reached Jackson, Missouri, on his 
way to St. Louis on March 21st.^ He was received in St. 
Louis with great rejoicing. The citizens of that town expressed 
much satisfaction on receipt of the good news. A local chron- 
icler wrote: 'The town was generally and splendidly il- 
luminated; several transparencies were displayed. Among 
others a very handsome one displaying the American Eagle 
surmounting the Irish Harp. We were diverted by another, 
representing a slave in great spirits, rejoicing at the permission 
granted by Congress to bring slaves into so fine a country as 
Missouri. "2 By April 1st the pioneers of the vast Boone's 
Lick country on the frontier read with joy this item in the 
Missouri Intelligencer: "Pleasing Intelligence — We have the 
pleasure of laying before our readers the gratifying intelligence 
that the Bill for the admission of Missouri into the Union 
UNRESTRICTED, has passed both houses of Congress," etc. 

The celebration over the passage of the Enabling Act had 
hardly ended in Missouri before the question of electing dele- 
gates to a constitutional convention became the important 
topic of discussion. This question made prominent the same 
problem that had convulsed Washington, D. C, for two years — 
the problem of the restriction or the non-restriction of slavery 
in Missouri. "It appeared that the political storm had not 
spent its fury, and had passed from the last to rage with violence 
nearer the western horizon." ^ There was, however, this 
difference between these two political storms: the national 
struggle was between forces of equal strength ; the local struggle 

> Houck. Hist. Mo., III. 248. 
• Mo. Gaz., Apr. 5, 1820. 
» Edwards, Great West, 322. 

(114) 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 115 

was between a small group of able, determined, conscientious 
men on the one hand and the overwhelming majority of the 
people on the other hand. The local struggle never meant 
more than a fight for principles against overwhelming odds. 
The press of the State with but one exception, the bench and 
bar of Missouri with only several notable exceptions, the wealth 
and social position of Missouri's leaders, and the great mass of 
Missourians themselves stood together for an unrestricted, 
unlimited system of slavery in the new state. Few and none 
of prominence, had the temerity to publicly favor abolition. 
The division in Missouri was between the few hundreds of voters 
who favored a constitutional limitation upon the immigration 
of slaves into Missouri after a period of years, and the thousands 
who would not permit any tampering with slavery. The one 
sought merely slavery restriction: the other slavery free and 
unrestricted. The former dreamed of a day when slavery 
would die: the latter stood for the perpetuation of slavery. 
The fight was on between restrictionists and anti-restriction- 
ists. 

In such a fight the advantage of numbers and wealth was 
all on the side of the pro-slavery men. From the time of the 
American occupation of the Northwest Territory much of the 
immigration to Upper Louisiana had been prompted by a desire 
to escape such slavery restrictions as were imposed in the 
Northwest Ordinance.* The settlers in Missouri during the 
territorial period had come principally from the five slave states 
of Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina and 
Tennessee. From the spring of 1819 to the spring of 1820 a 
constant stream of these southern immigrants with their slaves 
and flocks poured into Missouri. Such an influx of population 
had never before been seen in this district. All the Missouri 
writers of that day were impressed with its magnitude and all 
agreed in their accounts regarding the southern character of 
the new settlers.^ The South was sending forth its most ener- 



• Dunn, Slavery Petitions and Papers, in Ind. Hist. Soc. Pub., II. No. 12, 
pp. 13ff. 

'A/o. Gaz., June 9, Oct. 20, 1819, Jan. 26, 1820; Niles' Register, XVII. 288 
(Dec. 25, 1819); FUnt, Recollections, p. 201. 



1 16 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

getic and virile families into the rich bottom lands of Missouri. 
While Congress was debating slavery in Missouri, the South 
was settling it with her sons. 

This incoming of southern settlers during the late territorial 
period had definitely established slavery as an institution in 
Missouri.^ Slavery had existed in upper Louisiana for decades 
and had been an object of solicitude as early as 1805, but it 
was not until the Americans from the south brought in their 
thousands of negroes that its economic position was securely 
founded. In 1810 the slave population of the Territory had been 
only 3,011, in 1820 this had increased to 10,222.' As there 
were only 14,767 white males over eighteen years of age in 
Missouri in 1820, it is evident that there was probably a suffi- 
cient- number of slaves in Missouri to have allowed at least one 
to every male property owner. ^ These figures show the strength 
of slavery in Missouri in 1820, the character of the inhabitants 
of the State served to buttress this strength. Slavery was an 
important factor in the economic life of Missourians at this 
time. Much wealth was locked up in slaves and much wealth 
was being produced by slaves. Criticism of slavery as a poor 
economic system in Missouri is not found in any of the source 
material of that day. We are driven to the conclusion that 
from an economic point of view alone, slavery in Missouri in 
1820 was regarded as indispensible to the life of the State.' 

The campaign preceding the election of delegates to a 
constitutional convention and the election itself pictured 
clearly public opinion in Missouri in 1820 on this question of 
slavery and on other important issues. For only seven counties 



• Trexler, Slavery in Mo., 1804-1865, in Johns Hopkins Univ. Hist. Studies, 
XXXII. No. 2, pp. 105ff. 

' U. S. Census, Statistical View and Schedule, 1790-1830, pp. 23, 27. 

• Ibid., p. 23. Our data is insuflflcient for us to determine the extent of slave 
holdings in Missouri in 1820. 

» Houck, op. cit.. III. 250. The view taken by Mr. Houck is that had no 
attempt been made by Congress "to prohibit slavery" In Missouri, "slavery 
would have been excluded from the new state." Prof. Trexler, who made an 
extended study of this question takes the view that slavery was economically 
profitable in Missouri in 1820. that the people of the State favored slavery In 
itself, and that Congressional action was only the occasion of the outbreak of 
anti-restriction literature that issued from Missouri. C/., Trexler, op. cit., pp. 
lOOlI. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 117 

is pre-election data obtainable on these points, but in these 
counties Hved nearly two-thirds of the population of Missouri. 
They include the counties of Howard, Cooper, Lincoln, Wash- 
ington, Cape Girardeau, Jefferson and St. Louis.*" 

In Howard and Cooper counties public opinion was over- 
whelmingly pro-slavery and anti-restrictionistic. Of the twenty 
candidates who offered themselves for election in Howard 
county, not one publicly favored slavery restriction; and of 
the five delegates elected, four stated their advocacy of slavery 
and of the immigration of slaves — the other delegate, a slave 
owner, having put forth no argument for his election except his 
name.** The candidates in Cooper county made no public 
declaration of principles that appeared in the press. Two of 
the three elected were, however, slave-owners and all were 
natives of either Virginia or Kentucky. *2 

The Boone's Lick people appeared to have been less con- 
cerned about slavery restriction than the historians of a century 
later. Apparently no restrictionist would have stood a chance 
of election there and would probably have fared poorly to have 
openly declared himself. These western pioneers were of one 
mind on slavery and never feared that Missourians would 
interfere with that institution. Other questions were, however, 
matters for public discussion. They regarded a correct ap- 
portionment of delegates and representatives, the central 
location of the seat of government, white male suffrage, the 
elective principle as applied to the executive and legislative 
departments, a sound and independent judiciary, public edu- 
cation, the absence of property qualifications for voters, con- 
servative banking laws, and a bill of rights, as being important 
questions on which the convention might decide adversely. 



'•The combined white and colored population of these counties was 42,669: 
the total population of the State was 66,586. Cf., U. S. Census. Schedule p. 23. 

" See flies of the Mo. InielL, for April and May. 1820. The four delegates 
were Green, Reeves, Burckhartt and Findlay; the one was Ray, a native of 
Kentucky and a slave-owner. 

'« LiUard and Wallace were slave-owners, the one a native of Virginia, the 
other of Kentucky. The third delegate, Clark, was a native of Virginia. 

The Mo. Jntell., May 13, 1820, states that there were eight candidates in 
Cooper county: the Hist, of Cooper Co.. p. 75, gives a list of twelve candidates 
with the vote recorded for each. 



118 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

These were the questions that were discussed with much vigor 
in the Missouri Intelligencer preceding the election. These 
were the vitally important questions regarding which doubt 
was entertained of their final issue in the new constitution to 
be framed. Slavery was regarded as a practically settled 
question on which there was a unanimity of opinion, but an 
easternly situated state capitol or a restricted suffrage was an 
actual possibility and the Howard and Cooper county people 
wanted delegates they could trust when such questions were 
before the convention. 

In Lincoln county only four candidates appeared. Two 
of these favored restricting the period of slavery immigration 
fearing lest Missouri deal in slaves as articles of commerce; 
the third stated that he favored slavery; and the fourth, Henry — 
who was elected — made no statement that appeared in the 
newspapers. ^^ Henry was a large slave-owner and his election 
is sufificient proof of the slavery sentiment in Lincoln county. 

In Washington county public opinion on slavery is sig- 
nificantly revealed in the vote that was cast on election day. 
The votes cast were four hundred and fifty-three. If each 
voter voted for three delegates — the number allotted Wash- 
ington county — there would have been a total of one thousand 
three hundred and fifty-nine delegate votes. At Mine a Burton 
there were one thousand two hundred and eight delegate votes 
cast, and of these only sixty-one were for restrictionists.^* 
Further, all three delegates elected were slave-owners. 

In Cape Girardeau county thirteen candidates were before 
the voters. Only one, George H. Scripps, was an avowed 
restrictionist.^* The others who stated their position on this 
question were all strong pro-slavery men and non-restriction- 
ists.^® The five delegates elected were anti-restrictionists, 
pro-slavery men and had all publicly stated their position. 
The lowest vote received by any of these five was more than 
twice as high as that cast for Scripps, the restrictionist ; and 



"Mo. Gaz.. Apr. 12, 19, 26, 1820. 
'•S(. L. Enq.. May 10. 1820; Scharf, I. 563. 
>* Jackson (Mo.) Herald, Apr. 22, 1820. 
" Ibid., April 8. 15. 22, 29, 1820. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 119 

four candidates not elected also received higher votes than 
Scripps." This shows the preponderating anti-restriction public 
opinion in Cape Girardeau county. The Rev. Timothy Flint, 
who resided in Jackson, Missouri, from December, 1819, to 
the spring of 1820, said in this connection: "The slave ques- 
tion was discussed with a great deal of asperity, and no person 
from the northern states, unless his sentiments were unequiv- 
ocally expressed, had any hopes of being elected to the con- 
vention, that formed the constitution." '^ Four of the five 
delegates elected were natives of slave states; the other, a native 
of Ireland. 

In Jefferson county the slavery question was the im- 
portant one. A small but determined minority organized to 
elect a restrictionist delegate. A meeting of restrictionists was 
held at the house of John Geiger in Herculaneum on April 
22nd and David Bryant presided and Benjamin Lundy was 
appointed secretary. ^^ This meeting resolved that slavery was 
an evil and should be limited in Missouri; that it was inex- 
pedient at that time to urge abolition; that a freehold suffrage 
qualification was anti-republican; and that ballot voting was 
a security against "the vapouring bullies of aristocracy from 
extorting from the timid and the weak, a soul-degrading ac- 
quiescence in their tyranical proscriptions." The meeting also 
passed a resolution recommending Abner Vansant as a can- 
didate to the convention, and another naming a committee of 
five to draft an address to the electors. The committee re- 
ported an address, which had probably been previously pre- 
pared, which was ordered printed on handbills and distributed 
among the voters, and which was also ordered printed in the 
Missouri Gazette. 

The address was a remarkably clear and concise argument 
in favor of slavery restriction in Missouri. Contrasts were 



^^ Jackson {Mo.) Herald, May 6, 13, 1820. Buckner received the smallest 
vote of the five delegates elected. He received two hundred and forty-one 
votes; Scripps, one hundred and twelve votes; Bollinger, Ellis, Ranney and 
Lewis, all pro-slavery men, received more votes than Scripps, altho they were 
not elected delegates. 

"Flint's Recollections, p. 214. (Kirkpatrick). 

' • All information relating to Jefferson county was obtained from the Mo. 
Gat., April 26, 1820. 



120 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

drawn between free and slave states, such noted statesmen as 
Clay and Jefferson were quoted with force, and an appeal was 
made to the inherent ideas of justice in the breasts of Americans. 
A saner, more temperate, and more forceful anti-slavery docu- 
ment is not met with in the early history of Missouri. Its 
author performed well his duty and it is to be regretted that 
his name will probably never be known. 

Acting in accordance with the resolutions adopted at this 
meeting Abner Vansant made public statement of his sentiments 
on the questions considered and agreed to the fundamental 
acts of the restrictionist meeting. Despite the clear cut issues 
presented the voters in Jefferson county and despite, further, 
the appearance of two anti-restrictionist candidates, Samuel 
Hammond and John W. Honey, the restrictionists were defeated. 
Hammond, a wealthy land-owner and slave-holder, was elected 
to represent Jefferson county. 

It was in St. Louis county, the second in both slave and 
free population in the Territory, that the most bitter and de- 
termined fight was waged between restrictionists and anti- 
restrictionists.2° Not only were the restrictionists many times 
stronger in numbers in St. Louis county than in the other dis- 
tricts, but they were better organized, more ably led, and were 
alone in having the warm support of a local Missouri news- 
paper, the Missouri Gazette}^ Adding bitterness to the cam- 
paign in St. Louis county were the intense personal enmity 
of the two local editors, Thomas H. Benton of the Enquirer 
and Joseph Charless of the Gazette, the rivalry of such opposing 
lawyers and politicians as Rufus Pettibone and Rufus Easton 
on the one hand and David Barton and Edward Bates on the 
other, and the blood feud between Thomas H. Benton, the 
duellist, and his victim's father, John B. C. Lucas. The 
struggle here was not only a fight over personalities but also 



"Howard county, the most populous, had 11,319 whites, 2,089 slaves, and 
18 free colored in 1820; St. Louis, 8,014 white, 1,810 slaves, and 196 free colored, 
besides 29 others free. U. S. Census, 1830, Schedule, p. 23. 

«' The Mo. Intell., Franklin, Howard county; the Missouri Herald, Jackson 
Cape Girardeau county, and the St. Louis Enq., were all pro-slavery and anti- 
restriction papers. The Mo. Gaz. alone championed restriction principles. The 
first issues of the Missourian, St. Charles, that were examined by us were dated 
after the election had taken place. 




jdsi-.i'ii tii,\Ki.i;ss 

Kn.m IKHick'.- //,_./. Ma. 111. 65. 




THOMAS II. i{i:.\r().\. 

ilM ll,.iick\- lli'l. Mo. 111. 2(.S. 





Ki)\\.\Ri) i5.\ri:s. 

ll.Hick's nisi Mo. 111. IS. 



\i,i:.\.\Ni)i;i< .\K.\ AIR 

I'lx.m Uouck's //!../. .U-v. 111. 25?- 




IMKRRK CHOI li:.\l . JR. 
l-r„m Houck's //i./. .Uo. 111. 25J. 




\\ll.l,l.\.\l c;. IM.ITLS. 
l-roiii II -uck'.^ Hit. Mo. III. :;o. 



soMi". i'U().Mi.\i;.\r sr. i.oLis.ws in is^o. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 121 

over principles. Barton, Benton and some of their friends 
were not only attacked for being bachelors, for being debauched, 
and for forming a lawyer clique, but were also accused of being 
anti-restrictionists, and of being advocates of freehold suffrage 
and viva voce voting; Lucas was opposed not only because of 
his record as one of the board of commissioners of the United 
States for adjusting Spanish land claims and because of his 
personal enemies, but also because he was a restrictionist. 
Although this was not the first political campaign waged in 
St. Louis county or in the Territory, it was one of the most 
determined and bitter prior to the State election in August, 
1820. The secret and the open caucus were in notice and the 
popular meeting of those days was also present. The issues 
were clearly drawn and the candidates definitely placed: the 
stake was the election of eight delegates, three more than any 
other Missouri county was apportioned, to Missouri's first 
constitutional convention. Such a stake was as fully appre- 
ciated at that time as it would be today. These eight delegates 
acting together would control with their own votes alone 
twenty per cent of the entire convention and would form 
thirty-eight and one-half per cent or nearly two-lifths of a 
majority. Such was the importance of the St. Louis county 
campaign and election. 

The anti-restrictionist candidates were divided into one 
large group and two small ones. All three groups publicly 
held this in common that they opposed placing a constitutional 
restriction on the importation of slaves into Missouri. United 
in being anti-restrictionists they differed however on other 
points. The most important group of restrictionists was such 
by virtue of numbers, ability, organization and power. It 
originally consisted of thirteen candidates although only twelve 
publicly declared themselves.-- These thirteen were David 
Barton, Edward Bates, Thomas H. Benton, Pierre Chouteau, 
Jr., G. W. Ferguson, Henry S. Geyer, Wilson P. Hunt, M. P. 
Leduc, Mathias McGirk, Alexander McNair, Bernard Pratte, 
William Rector, and John C. Sullivan.^' Benton's name was 

«' Mo. Gaz., AprU 19. 1820. editorial. 

"Mo. Gaz., April 12. 19. 26. May 3, 10. 1820. 



122 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

never listed with the other candidates in the newspapers but 
there were several petitions in circulation requesting his can- 
didacy. It does not appear, however, that these petitions, 
were popular.^* Since there were only eight delegates to elect, 
the thirteen anti-restrictionists of this group decided to select 
eight of their number as the running candidates and the other 
five were to resign, thus increasing the chances of the ticket. 
Each of the thirteen candidates appointed a deputy to repre- 
sent him and these thirteen deputies held a private meeting 
in St. Louis on April 10th. At this meeting ballots were cast 
and the following seven candidates were decided upon: David 
Barton, Edward Bates, Wilson P. Hunt, Alexander McNair, 
Bernard Pratte, William Rector and John C. Sullivan. There 
was a tie between Chouteau and Benton, and, as the other four 
candidates were apparently dropped, the contest was between 
these two. The decision was finally given in favor of Chou- 
teau. The other candidates publicly resigned and the lawyer 
slate of the foregoing eight candidates was placed before the 
people.^^ Besides this caucus meeting there was a public 
meeting of the anti-restrictionists at Florissant. Some at this 
meeting opposed the lawyers' ticket but it appears that the 
eight candidates were finally endorsed. ^^ This ticket was the 
regular anti-restriction slate, it had organization and agree- 
ment back of it, and it was supported by the anti-restriction 
organ, the Ejiqiiirer. Further, it represented the radical pro- 
slavery sentiment of the county and stood before the voters 
principally on that issue. Its campaign slogan might well 
have been — Slavery Unrestricted for Missouri.-'' 



«• Mo. Gaz., April 26, 1820. 

"Mo. Gaz., April 19, 26, 1820. The charge was made by the opposition 
that Chouteau could not speak English and that only several days before the 
meeting of the caucus had given in his testimony in French by means of an In- 
terpreter before the district court. Mo. Gaz., April 26, 1820, "An Elector." 
Cf., Mo. Gaz., May 10, 1820, editorial. 

"Mo. Gaz., April 26, 1820, "I." 

" Chouteau declared himself only on the question of slavery {Mo. Gaz., 
April 19, 1820); Hunt foolishly went into details regarding his anti-restriction 
principles and went so far as to practically defeat his major premise, to this may 
easily be attributed his defeat at the polls (ibid., April 19, 1820); McNair was 
for unrestricted slavery and also for free, white male suffrage based on age, resi- 
dence and a slight ta.\ qualification (ibid., April 26, 1820); Rector's principles 



II 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 123 

The second group of anti-restrictionists were composed of 
three candidates, John S. Ball, Risdon H. Price, and Thomas 
F. Riddick. These men were also for unrestricted slavery in 
Missouri, but they were running independently of the caucus 
slate. They further favored a free white male suffrage that 
was limited only by an age, residence and slight tax qualification.^* 
Riddick also favored ballot voting. Of these men the most 
prominent was Riddick and his long and honorable public 
record in St. Louis was a strong recommendation for him. 

The third class of anti-restrictionists embraced only one 
candidate, Rufus Easton. His address for election was directed 
to the independent voters. He favored leaving the question 
open in the hands of the legislature in regard to the migration 
of slaves. He opposed disturbing the convention, state and 
nation, by placing a binding prohibition in the constitution 
which would prevent the legislature from ever regulating or 
stopping the importation of slaves in the State. He said: 
"that subject should be left free for the state to legislate upon 
from time to time, unshackled by any constitutional provision." 
Easton was an anti-restrictionist only in this sense, that he 
opposed a slavery restriction clause in the constitution. In 
regard to suffrage he favored a tax qualification.^^ Such a 
stand on the slavery question was undoubtedly unsatisfactory 
to both restrictionists and anti-restrictionists. Easton probably 
resigned before the election as his name is not listed in the 
newspaper election returns. 

The restrictionists had at least eight and perhaps eleven 
candidates at the beginning of the campaign .^"^ Six of these 
resigned on April 19th, leaving the following five restriction 
candidates in the field: John Bobb, Caleb Bowles, John B. C. 



were the same as McN'air's except that he also favored ballot voting (ibid., April 
19, 1820); Sullivan's position was the same as McNair's (ibid., April 26, 1820). 
The individual announcements of the other candidates were not found. 

" Afo. Gaz., April 26, 1820. No declaration of principles by Ball could be 
found. 

*> Mo. Gaz., April 12, 1820. 

" It could not be ascertained regarding the platform of Clement B. Penrose. 
James Mackay and Alexander Stuart. The latter resigned on April 19th and 
probably the other two did this before the election. (Mo. Gaz., April 12, 19, 
1820.) 



124 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Lucas, Rufus Pettibone, and Robert Simpson.^^ This elimina- 
tion process was probably the result of an agreement similar 
to the proceedings of the anti-restrictionists. 

The head of the restrictionist ticket was Judge John B. C. 
Lucas, a prominent and honored lawyer and public official for 
years in the Territory. His principles were in general those of 
the other four candidates, except that he took perhaps a more 
conservative attitude towards slavery. Lucas stated his views 
in a lengthy article announcing his candidacy.^^ He dis- 
claimed being a part of any ticket or clique, and stated that 
the opinions he had would be subject to modification in the 
convention if more information was there given. He assured 
the voters of his stand on slavery in the following language: 
"Were it not for the false statements that have been set afloat 
concerning my views, I should think it unnecessary to assure 
the public that nothing was or is more foreign to my mind, 
than to attempt to shake in the convention, diminish or impair 
any existing right, even the right to hold slaves or their off- 
spring, to the most remote generations." He stated, however, 
that since the larger portion of Missourians were not slave- 
owners he was opposed to the further unrestricted importation 
of slaves, and favored every effort to prevent the increase or 
extension of slavery which effort was consistent with the vested 
rights of the people of Missouri. He said further: "I there- 
fore am of opinion that it would be beneficial to the majority 
of the present population, and still more so to the future genera- 
tions, to prohibit by this constitution the importation or the 
immigration of slaves from any state or territory into the state 

of Missouri from and after time." While not 

critical regarding the importation of domestic slaves with their 
household masters, Lucas bitterly opposed plantation slave 
gangs coming into the State. He opposed the latter in his love 
for the free white laborer, small land owner, and tenant. Be- 
sides taking a definite stand on slavery Lucas favored ballot 



" The other three to resign were Abner Beck, John Brown, and William 
Long. These all received votes, however, at the election. (Mo. Gaz., April 19, 
26, May 10, 1820.) 

" Mo. Gaz., April 12, 1820. This article also appeared in French in this 
paper on April 26. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 125 

voting as "the only means to allay the political paroxysm that 
seldom fails to happen at elections, and gives the weak, the 
timid, and the dependent, a fair opportunity to give a con- 
scientious and independent vote, without exposing themselves 
to the violence of political bullies, or the vengeance of over- 
bearing, wealthy and ambitious men." He also advocated a 
tax qualification for voters and opposed a freehold qualification. 
Notwithstanding these mild restrictionist views, Lucas was 
defeated. In a letter written by him on October 27, 1820, he 
stated that he did not succeed because he had favored a limit 
of five years or some short period from the adoption of the 
constitution as the limit for the importation of slaves. There- 
upon, he added, the pro-slavery men called him an emancipator 
"and this is the worst name that can be given in the State of 
Missouri."^' Lucas in a letter written eighteen months later 
stated that as he was known to have opposed the Spanish 
land claims, these claimants opposed him and reported that he 
opposed slavery in order to defeat him.^* The evidence is con- 
clusive that Lucas' restrictionist views defeated him at the polls, 
regardless of the causes that prompted his enemies to dwell 
upon these anti-slavery views. 

The second restrictionist candidate in importance was 
Rufus Pettibone. He favored restricting slavery in Missouri, 
"but still for the sake of encouraging emigration" opposed 
for a number of years prohibiting "persons wishing to emigrate 
here, and settle among us, from bringing their slaves with them."^* 
Pettibone opposed a freehold and favored a tax qualification 
only for voters and advocated ballot voting. A similar posi- 
tion was taken by Robert Simpson. While condemning slavery 
as a moral and political evil, Simpson opposed the emancipa- 
tion of slaves and of their increase since slaves were property. 
He thought, however, that Missouri should prevent slaves 
being brought into Missouri as into a market and advocated 



••"Lucas to Robert Moore (J. B. C. Lucas. Jr., comp. letters of Hon. J. B. 
C. Lucas, from 1815 to 1836, pp. 28f." (Citation taken from Trexler, p. 104.) 

»« "Lucas to William Lowndes, Nov. 26, 1821 {ibid., p. 158); Lucas to Rufus 
King. Nov. 16, 1821 {ibid., p. 148)." {Trexler, p. 104.) 

Mo. Gaz., May 17, 1820. 

» Mo. Gaz., April 12, 1820. Letter dated April 10, 1820. 



126 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

some restriction on slave immigration. Although a restriction- 
ist, Simpson thought it expedient to "allow a reasonable time 
for those owing slaves and who may become interested in our 
soil, to emigrate to the state." "But," he added, "this 
question of slavery seems to have absorbed every other con- 
sideration." Simpson regarded the suffrage a greater one and 
was strongly opposed to a restricted or freehold qualification.^® 
Caleb Bowles, another restrictionist, stated that if elected he 
would "use every endeavour to stop the further introduction 
of slaves at as early period as possible." He was explicit, 
however, in his opposition "to interfere with the slaves already 
in the territory." " 

In short the position taken by the restrictionist candidates 
was perfectly clear. While in some instances opposed to 
slavery, all opposed tampering with or emancipating the slaves 
already in the territory or their increase. Existing property 
rights were always to be respected. While favoring restriction 
on the immigration of slaves into the territory, only one went 
so far as to advocate such restriction "at as early a period as 
possible. "^^ The voters were given to understand that the 
restrictionists were not emancipators but only restrictionists. 

In order to arouse public opinion and to organize, about 
one hundred restrictionists held a meeting in St. Louis on April 
10th .^^ Joseph Charless was chairman and the resolutions 
adopted stated that the meeting was "decidedly opposed to 
any interference with the slaves" then in the territory,^" that 
the further introduction of slaves should be stopped as early 
as possible," and that the St. Louis county delegates should 
try to effect this result in the convention; that the meeting 
opposed a freehold suffrage qualification and viva voce voting; 



"Mo. Gaz., April 5, 19. 1820. 

"Mo. Gaz., April 5, 1820. 

" Caleb Bowles. Mo. Gaz., April 5, 1820. 

'* Mo. Gaz., April 12, 1820. 

"Joseph Charless in answer to "A Farmer" stated publicly as follows on 
this point: "I am apprised of the sentiments of all those candidates who are 
favorable to the future restriction of slavery, and have conversed with most of 
them on the subject, and I can assure them [the friends of "A Farmer"], that not 
one of them [the restrictionists) holds the opinion he depricates. They are de- 
cidedly opposed to any interference with the slaves in the territory." (Mo. 
Gaz., April 12. 1820.) 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 127 

that candidates declare their positions on slavery, suffrage and 
voting principles; and that the two St. Louis papers insert the 
resolutions. There were some present at this meeting who 
belonged to the anti side and these parties attempted to divert 
if not disperse the gathering. Their attempts failed but the 
Enquirer very unjustly branded all restrictionists thereafter 
as "disorganizers, or emissaries of King and Clinton, or the 
busy spirits of anarchy." ^^ 

From the data at hand it does not seem that a hearty 
reception was accorded the restrictionists. Even the restric- 
tionists themselves became less assertive and less definite in 
regard to restriction as the days of election approached. Even 
the real leader of the restrictionists, Joseph Charless, hedged 
to the extent of emphasizing that Lucas stood for existing 
slavery rights and that as far as Lucas entertained restrictionist 
views these "private sentiments" would "yield to the public 
will, whenever it will be clearly and distinctly made known." ^^ 

The pro-slavery party, on the other hand, became more 
confident and dogmatic in regard to their positiion on slavery 
as the final test drew near. They stood firm on the single issue 
of slavery-restriction or unlimited immigration of slaves, and 
they went before the voters with seemingly little fear of defeat. 
They were glad to drop all other issues such as suffrage and 
voting, and stumped the county only against slavery restriction. 
Accusations and counter-accusations were in evidence but the 
pro-slavery men had the advantage.*' The latter held the 
trump card, knew it, and would play no other. Side issues — 
as important intrinsically as slavery — were brushed aside by 
them and the flag of unlimited, unrestricted slavery was held 
up before the voters. They knew the power they wielded and 



«' April 19, 1820. by "A Member of the meeting." 

" Mo. Gaz., April 19, 1820, editorial. 

" The Enquirer accused the Methodist preachers of preaching and laboring 
for slavery restriction. Some were even accused by the pro-slavery men of preach- 
ing rebellion to the slaves. The latter charge was never substantiated, and the 
former was denied by the Rev. M. Peck. (Mo. Gaz., May 10, 1820. "Fair Play; 
ibid.. May 24, 1820, "A. McAllister.") The Enquirer spoke of the restrictionists 
as the "Yankees," a term of more wide-spread reproach in Missouri in 1820 than 
In the sixties. (Mo. Gaz., May 3, 1820.) The pro-slavery candidates in St. Louis 
county were branded as debauched, depraved bachelors who formed a lawyer 
junto. {Mo. Gaz., April, May, 1820.) 



128 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

did nothing that would have impaired that power. They 
gathered to themselves popular opinion because they perceived 
and interpreted one thing that the people wanted. The people 
also wanted an unrestricted suffrage, except with age and resi- 
dence qualifications, and an unrestricted system of voting, the 
ballot system, but they either desired or were led to desire an 
unrestricted slavery more than either or both of these.'''' The 
issue of the day had become solely a restricted or an unre- 
stricted slavery system for Missouri. 

The election was held on the first Monday and the two 
days following in May, which fell on the first, second and third 
of that month. Contrary to popular opinion and contrary 
even to former recorded Missouri history, this election was not 
held viva voce. The voting was by ballot.''^ 

The St. Louis county polls were the center of interest of 
the Territory. There the restrictionists were strongest. There 
the anti-slavery men stood a better chance of electing a delegate 
than in any other county. On May 3rd, the last day of the 
election, the Missouri Gazette addressed the voters in an im- 
passioned editorial, that even today has a modern, twentieth 
century ring. It said in part: 

"Fellow Citizens, Today is the last opportunity that is left you to give your 
voice in forming a State Constitution. You are now called upon for the last 
time to say whether aristocracy and tyranny shall prevail — whether a few nabobs 

selected by a secret caucus, shall be forced upon you , or whether you 

will exercise the proper persons to frame your mode of government. You are 
now called upon for the last time to declare whether yoiu-selves, and your children, 

to the latest generation, will be cursed with slavery ; or whether you 

will elect men who will take measures gradually to extinguish the evil, without 

interfering with the existing rights of property Your destiny is fixed by 

the result of this day's vote." 



** Mo. Gaz., April 12. 19, 26, 1S20, "Anthony Benezet;" ibid., April 19, 1820, 
"A Mechanic;" ibid., April 26, 1820, "An Elector." 

«• Billon, Annals, 1804-1821, p. 106, states that the election was held rica 
voce. 

All territorial elections were held by ballot. This continued down to Dec. 
9, 1822, when the viva voce system was adopted but ballot voting was even by that 
act still lawful. Ballot voting came back thirteen years later in 1835. In those 
days there was little material difference between the two systems: neither was 
secret, the judge or clerk of the election reading aloud the ticket cast or announcing 
the oral vote cast. Otis, Election Laws of Mo., pp. llf; Afo. Ter. Laws, I. 185, 
Act of June 18, 1808; Ibid., pp. 297f., act of Jan. 4, 1814; ibid., pp. 512f.. act of 
Jan. 29, 1817; ibid., (Laws of the State) p. 961, act of Dec. 9, 1822. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 129 

The result of the election in St. Louis county was, however, 
most gratifying to the pro-slavery party. All eight delegates 
elected were anti-restrictionists and all but one had been slated 
by the caucus. The total number of votes cast for all the 
restrictionist candidates was 2,026, while the total for the 
anti-restrictionists was 7,265 — a ratio of nearly four to one 
for the pro-slavery party. The highest vote cast for a restric- 
tionist was 400, which was given to J. B. C. Lucas; the lowest 
was 73, to William Long: the highest vote cast for an anti- 
restrictionist was 892, which was given to David Barton; the 
lowest was 144, to Ridson H. Price. The pro-slavery delegate 
who received the smallest number of votes was Thos. F. Riddick. 
His vote was, however, 562, or 162 votes more than Lucas re- 
ceived.^® By no possibility could the restrictionists have elected 
a delegate. They were numerically in the minority. There 
were not more than four hundred restrictionist voters in th*' 
entire county and at least two hundred and sixty of these were 
located in the St. Louis township. Although only fifty-seven 
per cent of the total vote was cast in St. Louis township, the 
restrictionists obtained sixty-eight per cent of their total there. 
The stronghold of the restrictionists was the town, although 
even there the pro-slavery party had at least four hundred and 
seventy-seven voters as against the two hundred and sixty 
restrictionists. Moreover, nine of the pro-slavery candidates 
received more votes in St. Louis township than any restric- 
tionist candidate. In each of the other two townships in the 
county the pro-slavery party was proportionately stronger 
than even in St. Louis.^^ In St. Louis township the pro-slavery 
candidates received three and one-half times as many votes as 
the restrictionists, in the other two townships the former re- 
ceived four times as many. However, in St. Louis township 

** Mo. Gaz., May 10, 1820. The pro-slavery votes were cast as follows: 
Barton, 892; Bates. 881; Chouteau, 586; McNair, 881; Pratte, 874; Rector, 889; 
Riddick. 562; Sullivan. 861; BaU. 303; Hunt. 392; Price, 144. The first eight 
were elected, Riddick the independent pro-slavery candidate won over Hunt 
the slated pro-slavery man. The restrictionist votes were cast as follows: Lucas, 
400; Simpson, 390; Pettibone, 329; Bowles, 342; Bobb, 296; Beck, 111; Brown, 
85; Long, 73. The last three had declined before the election. 

" Votes given by townships for each candidate found in Mo. Gaz., May 10, 
1820. 

M S— 9 



130 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

the pro-slavery voters outnumbered the restrictionist voters, 
only about two to one; in the two other townships, three to one. 

The organization of both parties was strongest in St. Louis 
township. Here the pro-slavery caucus slate of eight, went 
through with only a defection of one hundred votes in the case 
of Chouteau and about one hundred and fifty votes in the case 
of Hunt. Here the restrictionist ticket of five candidates was 
supported with slight scratching. In the other two townships, 
however, more independent voting obtained. Hunt, a slated 
pro-slavery candidate, polled only 74 votes in these, while 
Riddick, the independent pro-slavery candidate, polled 365 
votes, and Ball, another independent pro-slavery candidate, 
received 179 votes. In one outside township, Chouteau was 
so unpopular that he polled only 7 votes, while his ticket se- 
cured an average of about 150 votes. To this independent 
voting Riddick owed his election. 

The result of the election throughout the Territory was 
even more decidedly pro-slavery than in St. Louis county. 
The Missouri Intelligencer on June 10th, said editorially: "It 
is now certain that the whole Missouri delegation to the Con- 
vention are in favor of Missouri being a slave state uncon- 
ditionally." The St. Louis Enquirer on May 10th, said edi- 
torially: "We undertake to say that there is not a single con- 
fessed restrictionist elected throughout the Territory, nor a 
disguised one that will venture to confess himself in the con- 
vention." The Jackson Herald on May 27th gave a list of the 
delegates elected in most of the counties and commented: "All 
in favor of the continuancje of slavery in Missouri." *^ Even 
the independent editor of the Missouri Gazette wrote on May 
10th the following bitter confession: "The election for mem- 
bers of the convention is past, and has resulted in the choice 
of candidates, whose sentiments on several points we honestly 

avow, we did not approve If a majority of the people 

are willing and desirous that slavery shall exist eternally in 
Missouri; that the right of suffrage shall be confined to those 



" The Herald on May 13th also copied in the Enquirer's comment of May 
10th. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 131 

who own a freehold, or a quantity of negroes, that all voting 
shall be viva voce, we are contented." *' 

The results of the election in the other counties showed 
an even stronger pro-slavery sentiment than existed in St. 
Louis county. No record is found of there having been any 
restrictionist candidates before the people except in St. Louis, 
Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln and Cape Girardeau counties. 
In St. Louis county there were not over four hundred restric- 
tionists; in Jefferson county, probably not a hundred ; in Washing- 
ton, about seventy; in Lincoln not over a hundred; and in Cape 
Girardeau, about one hundred and fifty. In the other counties 
there were either no restrictionists or they were negligible, 
since no candidate was put forth. Thus allowing the liberal 
number of eight hundred and twenty-five restrictionists in the 
five foregoing counties, it is quite probable that there were not 
over a thousand restrictionist voters in the Territory. As the 
ratio of votes cast to the white population ranged between one 
to five to one to eight, and as the total white population of the 
territory was approximately 56,000, the number of voters 
voting was between seven and eleven thousand. In short the 
restrictionists were not only in the minority but were hope- 
lessly in that class, being outnumbered at least seven to one 
and perhaps nine or ten to one.*" 

••See also Mo. Gaz., May 17, 31, 1820. 

•» Lucas, who received the largest number of votes given a restrictionist, 
polled only 400 votes. In Jefferson county 265 votes were cast. This represented 
265 voters, since Jefferson county elected only one delegate. There were three 
candidates in the field, Hammond, Henry — both pro-slavery men — and Vausant, 
restrictionist. Hammond and Henry probably received at least 165 votes. 
Hammond was elected. (Scharf, Hist. St. Louis. I, 563, gives return of votes 
for ten counties. Supposed to have been copied from the returns made to the 
Executive office.) In Washington county all three pro-slavery candidates were 
elected. All but 150 votes were cast at Mine a Burton. At this place, 1,147 
were pro-slavery votes and only 61 were restrictionist votes. (St. Louis Enq., 
May 10, 1820.) In Lincoln county, one delegate to elect, 248 votes were cast. 
:Scharf, op. cit.) Four candidates were in the field— two restrictionists and two 
jro-slavery men. A pro-slavery candidate, Malcolm Henry, was elected. The 
)ro-slavery sentiment in Lincoln county was probably even stronger than in 
fefferson county, since it had a larger slave population but a smaller white popula- 
ion. In Cape Girardeau county there were 837 votes cast. (Scharf, op. cit.) 
The single restrictionist candidate, Scripps, received only 147 votes. (Jackson 
Herald, May 6, 13, 1820.) 

The ratio of votes cast to the total white population varied in different 
ounties. In Washington county it was one to five, the number of votes being 



132 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Several writers on this subject of the election of delegates 
have stated that anti-Congress public opinion in Missouri 
had so influenced the people that the voters elected only strong 
pro-slavery delegates. In short that opposition to slavery 
restriction by Congressmen had reacted and become opposition 
to slavery restriction by Missourians; that anti-slavery men 
were so blinded in their hatred of anti-slavery legislation by 
Congress that they voted to perpetuate slavery among them- 
selves; and that pro-slavery delegates were elected because of 
resentment against attempted anti-slavery legislation by Con- 
gress and not because of a pro-slavery sentiment.^^ Such 
statements and conclusions have a plausibility that carries 
with it an almost convincing proof. All agree that Missourians 
were deeply stirred in anger against attempted Congressional 
slavery legislation in 1819. There is no room to doubt that 
there were few in Missouri in that year who dared openly to 
approve the efforts made by the majority of the National House 
of Representatives to restrict slavery here. The evidence is 
conclusive on this point. The next step is that so bitter was 
the resentment of Missourians in 1819 against anti-slavery 
legislation by Congress that even anti-slavery men voted for 
pro-slavery delegates in 1820 to frame pro-slavery laws in a 
Missouri constitutional convention. No evidence is given 
to support this, it is merely a statement based on conviction. 
On the other hand would it not be just as plausible to say that 
a strong resentment against anti-slavery legislation of Congress 
existed in Missouri in 1819 not only because Missourians ob- 
jected to any kind of Congressional interference but because 
they were strongly pro-slavery in sentiment? 

The facts, however, are these in regard to the election of 
pro-slavery delegates in 1820. Missourians elected pro-slavery 
delegates by overwhelming majorities not because they were 

453 and the white popiUation, 2,344. In Howard county the ratio was about 
one to seven, the number of votes being 1,735, the white population 11,319. In 
Cooper county the ratio was nearly one to eight, the number of votes being 797. 
the white population 6,307. (Scharf, op. cit.; U. S. Census, 1830, Schedule p. 
23.) 

For list of delegates elected see Appendix IV. 

»' Carr, Mo., pp. 150f; Hodder, Side Lights on Mo. Comp., in Am. Hist. 
Ass'n. R., 1909, p. 155. 



Popular Opinion in Missouri in 1820. 133 

better men or anti-Congress men, but because they were anti- 
restrictionists. The voters and the candidates did not write 
anti-Congress articles for the April and May Missouri news- 
papers of 1820, but wrote addresses to the people on pro-slavery 
and anti-slavery premises, on anti-restriction and restriction 
bases, on suffrage and on voting. These were the issues of the 
day, and the big issue over all was slavery. No attempt was 
made even by the pro-slavery candidates to convert people by 
anti-Congress arguments, and if such an attempt had been 
made its superficial character would probably have incensed 
rather than enthused Missourians. Such argument would 
have been a poor battle cry in 1820 in Missouri, and there was 
no hesitancy in those days to seize campaign material wherever 
it could be found. Charless tried to defeat the pro-slavery 
lawyers by calling them bachelors and immoral men, and un- 
democratic even to the exercise of the suffrage. Benton tried 
to cast coals on the heads of the restrictionists by accusing them 
of inciting humble ministers of the gospel to preach the doctrine 
of emancipation in the negroe's hut: but neither dug up the dead 
past of Congress legislation ."^ Both sides fought openly and 
squarely on the slavery platform, and to the voters slavery 
was the big question to be forever settled. 

The voters' interest in slavery was purely a matter of self- 
interest. The number of slaves in Missouri in 1820 equalled 
its number of voters. The 14,667 free white males over eight- 
een years toiled with or were toiled for by 10,222 human chattels. 
These ten thousand represented several million dollars that were 
doubly productive. No county had less than two hundred of 
these, and one county had twenty-one hundred. Then, there 
was the land-speculator, big and small. To get his profits or 
unearned increment, settlements were necessary. The quicker 
and the larger was immigration to the new State, the sooner 
he became wealthy. But immigration had set in from the south, 
the land of slavery. To restrict the slave immigration would 
be to limit white immigration. To argue that the stopping 



"Mo. Gaz., April 19, 1820; St. Louis Enq., June 14. 1820, quotation from 
Niles' Register, May 13, 1820, which had been taken for an article in the Mo. 
Gaz. 



134 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

of slave immigration from the south meant the beginning of 
white immigration from the north, was offering the speculator 
a chance in exchange for a certainty. Nor was the land spec- 
ulator, big farmer and small, alone a convert to these ideas. 
The business man, the surveyor, the politician, believed that 
his business was bound up with more southern settlers and 
more slaves. Reasons of justice and humanity were on the 
side of the restrictionists, and perhaps the farsighted logic of 
the future was theirs, but the reasons of dollars and self-interest 
and the keen cut logic of the present fought on the side of the 
pro-slavery party. In such a struggle the justice and wisdom 
possessed by a few hundred souls were no strong competitors 
to the self-interest and prejudice of the thousands of voters. 



CHAPTER V. 
FATHERS OF THE STATE. 

PERSONNEL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1820. 

It has always seemed strange to us that while much of the 
pioneer and military history of Missouri is familiarly known 
to all the United States, the lives of those men that framed 
and set in working the State's first constitution have excited 
so little interest even at home. Every schoolboy west of the 
Mississippi River and many east of it know something of that 
Kentucky and Missouri pioneer whose name has been popularly 
associated with the Boone's Lick Road, or of that famous Mis- 
sourian who has been so appropriately called the "Xenophon 
of the Mexican War." Yet the work of either Daniel Boone 
or Alexander W. Doniphan is equalled in Missouri history by 
that performed by David Barton, Edward Bates, Nathan 
Boone, Alexander Buckner, John D. Cook, Henry Dodge, 
Duff Green, Samuel S. Hammond, John Rice Jones, Alexander 
McNair, John Scott and many others of the forty-one dele- 
gates of Missouri's first constitutional convention. While 
the fame of Boone and Doniphan is fittingly preserved in 
Missouri county and town named in their honor, only three of the 
forty-one delegates are today so remembered.^ Indeed the 
lives of many of these constitution framers are today so hidden, 
not only from the general public but even from the historian, 



' Barton, Ray, and Scott counties, Missouri. Lillard county, Missouri, was 
named after Colonel William Lillard, a delegate, but the name was later changed 
to Lafayette county. Boone county, Iowa, was named in honor of Major Nathan 
Boone, a delegate, who was one of the first white men to set foot in that district. 
Bates county, Missouri, was named in honor of Governor Frederick Bates, who 
was the first Secretary of Missouri Territory and later the second Governor of 
the State of Missouri. Governor Bates was a brother of Edward Bates. Clark 
county, Missouri, was named in honor of William Clark, territorial governor of 
Missouri, and not in honor of Robert P. Clark, a delegate. Henry county, 
Missouri, was named after Patrick Henry, and not in honor of Colonel Malcolm 
Henry, a delegate. Perry county, Missouri, after Commodore Perry, and not 
in honor of Samuel Perry, a delegate. Sullivan county, Missouri, after Sullivan 
county, Tennessee, and not in honor of Major John C. Sullivan, a delegate. 

(13.5) 



136 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

that only after years of labor is it possible to compile sketches 
of their lives.^ This is the more singular when we consider 
that with few exceptions the convention was composed of 
the foremost men of Missouri of that day.^ It included in its 
membership so many forceful leaders whose remarkable careers 
and abilities arouse our admiration that it seems unfortunate 
to be limited to sketches of only the most noted of them. We 
believe, however, that the most eminent delegates were David 
Barton, John Rice Jones, Duff Green, Edward Bates, and 
Henry Dodge. The first four were lawyers; the last was en- 
gaged in lead mining and farming. Although in the conven- 
tion the influence of John D. Cook, Jonathan Smith Findlay, 
Alexander McNair, John Scott, or of several other delegates 
may have been greater than that of Henry Dodge, and perhaps 
equal to that of Duff Green, we have selected these two on ac- 
count of their preeminently superior ability and their more 
remarkable and distinguished careers. 

Excepting Jones all five were entering the prime of life. 
Their average age was not quite thirty-eight years: the young- 
est. Bates, who next to Baber was the most youthful member 
of the convention, had not yet completed his twenty-seventh 
year; the oldest, Jones, who was one of the four delegates that 
had passed the three score mark, was sixty-one years old. 
Barton and Dodge were entering middle age, being respectively 
thirty-seven and thirty-eight years old, and Green, one of the 
three youngest members under thirty, had barely attained the 
age of twenty-nine. Of these five the first to pass away was 
Jones, who with two other delegates did not live to see the 
constitution of 1820 in operation four years; Barton died within 



> The following generalizations on the delegates will not be supported with 
authorities, owing to the cliaracter of the summaries. 

Houck, op. cit.. III. 253, speaking of the delegates says: "At any rate, it 
has been a matter of no small difflcidty to secure reliable facts as to some of these 
worthies of other days, and in a few instances no details whatever could be found, 
so completely have their lives and very existence faded from the recollection of 
the present generation." 

• The most noted e.xception was Thomas H. Benton. Whether Benton 
feared defeat at the hands of his many enemies, if he became a candidate for the 
convention, or reasoned that he could exert more influence both on the constitu- 
tion and his future political fortunes, if he remained outside that body, is a matter 
of conjectiu-e. 



Fathers of the State. 137 

seventeen years; while Dodge, Bates, and Green, three of the 
last four survivors of the convention, lived to see another 
organic law govern Missouri, a civil war threatening the ruin 
of the Nation, and finally the restoration of peace. 

Nothing illustrates more clearly the cosmopolitan char- 
acter of the convention than the lives of its leaders. No two 
were natives of the same state or territory, and only Dodge 
and Green were reared in the same state: Bates was born and 
reared in Virginia ; Barton in what is now the State of Tennessee ; 
Green in Kentucky; Jones in Wales and England; and Dodge 
in what is now the States of Indiana, Kentucky and Missouri. 
The Bates family was one of the early English families of Vir- 
ginia; the Bartons were of Scotch descent and date back to 1546, 
when they were great merchant captains and as such were 
called "Kings of the Sea;" the Dodge family was of pure Eng- 
lish descent and had early settled in New England, where it 
grew for over a century and a half before trying its fortunes in 
the west; the Green family of Kentucky was of Welsh descent, 
and its first American sire was one of the original owners of the 
Shenandoah Valley ; the Jones family is so ancient in the records 
of Wales that its history is finally lost in the maze of legends of 
that country. In this connection we cannot refrain from 
noticing the remarkable good fortune that has followed the 
descendants of four of these men. Excepting David Barton, 
all married and left large families; and some of the members of 
each have achieved distinction in public life. It is no exaggera- 
tion to state that these four men have lineal descendants scat- 
tered from ocean to ocean and from the Gulf to Canada. 

The most popular man not only in the convention but in 
Missouri in 1820 was David Barton. A native of Tennessee 
both by birth and rearing and a member of one of the oldest 
families in America, he has always been written of by historians 
and biographers in the highest terms. He was undoubtedly 
the most interesting and forceful speaker among the delegates, 
and it is a question whether his superior or even equal as an 
orator could have been found west of the Mississippi River at 
that time, not even excepting Benton. We are certain that 
this Valley never sent to Congress a more vivacious, witty. 



138 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

sarcastic, and fascinating speaker. Not only was Barton a 
brilliant speaker but he was also a man of sterling integrity.* 
Until he cast his vote for Adams in 1825, Barton was regarded 
both at home and throughout the Nation as one of its greatest 
leaders. His downfall in 1830 was due to this act of his in 
1825, and to his refusal to align himself with the Jacksonian- 
Benton Democrats.^ Barton was one statesman Missouri 
produced who feared neither Benton nor Jackson, and who 
alone could meet "Old Bullion" on the floor of the Senate with 
greater hope of victory than fear of defeat. Few public men 
in Missouri history have been so idolized, so unanimously raised 
to the highest public position in the gift of the commonwealth, 
and so soon retired to private life. His life supplies all the 
material necessary for a tragedy. After much scheming and 
working he secured the election of his friend, Benton, to the 
United States Senate, and this was accomplished only after 
using his own great popularity to overcome the most stubborn 
opposition due to Benton's unpopularity. In four years his 
friend had become his enemy, and in ten years was the chief 
instrument in causing his political death. Seven years later 
in a cabin near Boonville the ravings of a lunatic were silenced, 
and Missouri's first United States Senator and one of her great- 
est statesmen and orators had passed away. 

While Barton was the most popular delegate and the most 
brilliant orator in the convention, he was neither so well edu- 
cated nor so deeply versed in law as were several of his col- 
leagues. In these qualities ranking over all the members was 
John Rice Jones, one of Missouri's first three Supreme Court 
Judges. This scholarly lawyer was an American by adoption, 
having been born in Wales of an old Welsh line. He received 



* As an example of this last quality might be noted Barton's refusal to accept 
the very liberal courtesy — mileage allowed United States Senators when they 
are convened in executive session on the expiration of a Congress. 

' Grave indictments were also made against the morals of Barton but we doubt 
if this was very influential in bringing about his defeat. Even in 1830 he was 
more popular than any other man in Missouri, excepting Benton. And the 
Benton forces were unable in that year to muster as many votes in the legislature 
as Barton did. The Missouri legislature in 1830 really elected a man who was 
the choice of the Barton forces. Alexander Buckner was a Jackson man who 
believed in Barton's policies. He was a compromise Senator and was far more 
acceptable to the Barton men than to the Bentonites. 



Fathers of the State. 139 

an excellent education in both law and medicine at Oxford 
University, and later practiced law in London. Coming to 
America in 1784 he formed the acquaintance of such eminent 
men as Benjamin Franklin, and Dr. Benjamin Rush in Phila- 
delphia. Attaching himself to General George Rogers Clark's 
force in 1786, Jones soon attracted attention in the Old North- 
west Territory both as a lawyer and as a politician. He was 
the first English speaking lawyer in Indiana Territory, its first 
Attorney General for four years, a member of its legislative 
council for nearly a like period, and with John Johnson made 
the first revision of its laws. Having moved from Vincennes 
to the Illinois country first in 1789 and later in 1809, he holds 
the honor of being the first practicing lawyer resident in the 
latter territory. His knowledge of law is said to have been 
remarkable, being deeply versed not only in the English system 
of jurisprudence but equally so in that of the Continent. He 
was, we believe, not only the most learned member of the con- 
vention but between 1790 and 1810 was also the greatest lawyer 
west of Ohio if not west of the Alleghany Mountains. His 
practice at one time included the entire northwest comprising 
the State of Ohio, the Territories of Indiana and Illinois, upper 
Louisiana — later the Territory of Missouri, and the Territory 
and State of Kentucky. We know of no other lawyer in the 
early history of the United States who enjoyed so extensive a 
practice over such a large domain of territory and under so many 
systems of jurisdiction. His success as a lawyer was equalled 
by his accomplishments as a scholar and a linguist, and was 
greatly aided by his ability as a speaker. He was a skillful 
reasoner, and a perfect master of satire and invective. His 
contemporaries tell us he was a brilliant advocate; and his 
great knowledge of books and men combined with a wide ex- 
perience, a restless and fearless disposition, and passions which 
when aroused swept all before them, made him a most effective 
and formidable opponent in either court or legislature. He was 
deeply versed both in mathematics and the classics, and was 
accomplished in the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Welsh, and 
English languages. United with these remarkable qualities of 
mind, John Rice Jones possessed the industry and skill of a 



140 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

man of finance. Together with Moses Austin he opened the 
first cupola or reverberatory furnace in the United States, and 
his progressive ideas on lead mining were favorably commented 
on by the United States government officials. He was one of 
the wealthiest men in the Great West, being part owner of the 
richest and oldest lead mine in the United States at that time, 
and one of the largest land owners in the country. It is inter- 
esting to note that the direct descendants of this remarkable 
man have become prominently connected with the history of 
Illinois, Texas, Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, Michigan, and Wis- 
consin.' 



In this respect we cannot forbear from contrasting Jones 
and Barton. While the one brought up a family whose male 
line for decades produced noted statesmen and politicians and 
whose female branch perpetuated the sterling qualities of its 
sire in a long list of descendants, the other died a bachelor. 
The former lives in hundreds of his lineal descendants; the 
latter is remembered only in the pages of history and in the 
memoirs of his contemporaries and admirers. 

One of the most devoted friends and worshippers of Barton 
was a reserved and refined young delegate, who only four years 
before had been admitted to the territorial bar of Missouri. 



• Rice Jones, the eldest son, was an early and brilliant lawyer at Kaskaskia 
in 1806. He was a member of the lower house in the legislature of Indiana Ter- 
ritory and his prominent and successful fight for the separation of Illinois from 
that territory resulted in his untimely death at the hands of an assassin. 

John Rice Jones, another son, became prominent in public life in Texas. 
After helping that State achieve her independence, he was appointed the first 
Postmaster General under the Republic; and also under the provisional, ad interim, 
and constitutional governments. Two of his brothers, Augustus and Myers 
Fisher, also achieved distinction in the Lone Star State. 

The most prominent son, George Wallace Jones, after holding ofiBce in Mis- 
souri and serving in the Black Hawk War, was elected a Delegate to Congress 
from Michigan Territory and later from the Territory of Wisconsin, and in 1848 
was elected one of the first two United States Senators from Iowa, being reelected 
to that office in 1852. 

A daughter, Harriet Jones, married the Honorable John Scott, who was 
Missouri's third territorial Delegate to Congress and who from 1820 to 1826 was 
that state's only Representative in the national legislature. Another daughter, 
Elizabeth Jones, married the Honorable Andrew Scott of Missouri, who held a 
Federal judgeship in Arkansas. C/., Wilkes, Geo. W. Jones, in la. Hist. Record, 
First Series. V. 433-456; W. A. Burt Jones, John Rice Jones, in Chicago Hist. 
Soc. Coll. IV. 2.30-270; Rozier, Jlisl. Miss. Valley, 274-278; Houck, op. cil.. III. 
256f; Conrad, Ency. Mo. Hist., IV. 470. 



Fathers of the State. 141 

Never did the law of the attraction of opposites work with 
greater force than in the Uves of David Barton and Edward 
Bates. Although maintaining a friendship similar to that 
which existed between David and Jonathan, they were in habits 
the antipodes of each other. The one was not only a confirmed 
victim of drink but led one of the most depraved and immoral 
lives in the history of great American statesmen; the other was 
the first president and the chief organizer of the Missouri Tem- 
perance Society, and, according to his most intimate friends 
and most bitter enemies, was an example of cleanliness and 
purity in his every private act. While Jones commanded the 
respect of the convention by the strength of his logic, and 
Barton won its good will and admiration by the persuasiveness 
and brilliance of his oratory, the youthful Bates entered into 
the hearts of all by virtue of his subtle mind, his pleasing and 
sincere manner, his high moral fiber, and his remarkable ability 
as a convincing speaker. Edward Bates was not only the most 
beloved but in many respects was one of the greatest men Mis- 
souri has produced. His ideals were of the highest order, his 
public career the longest — being finally crowned with a Cabinet 
position after nearly a half century of unremitting labors — and 
his entire life a model of success before the bar, on the floor, 
and in the home. 

The pupil of one of the most prominent lawyers in the 
Mississippi Valley, Rufus Easton, who was also the teacher of 
that remarkable but unfortunate advocate, Joshua Barton, Ed- 
ward Bates in turn became the friend and preceptor of the most 
brilliant and learned member of the Missouri Bar, James O. 
Broadhead. Although essentially a lawyer, Bates was one of the 
chief organizers and for decades was the leader of the Whig party 
in Missouri. Even after the rise of that great Whig statesman, 
James S. Rollins, he still retained in a large degree the mentor- 
ship of his party. While Bates is perhaps better known as a 
politician than as an advocate, he occupied comparatively few 
public ofifices. Some may explain this on the ground of his 
having belonged to the minority party in Missouri; but we are 
inclined to credit it to his dislike of office holding. Although 
Edward Bates was a remarkably successful lawyer, it required 



142 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

his constant efforts in that profession to meet the expense of 
rearing his large family. To him the holding of public ofifices 
was a sacrifice, and it was only because of his highly developed 
sense of civic duty that he was at times induced to enter actively 
into public life. Notwithstanding his disinclination along this 
line, his record in both state and national politics is one of the 
longest and most successful in the history of the Middle West. 
His first ofifice was held at the early age of twenty-four, 
when he was appointed Prosecuting Attorney of the Northern 
Circuit of Missouri Territory; his last public position was en- 
joyed after he had reached the ripe age of seventy, when he held 
the ofifice of Attorney General in the first Cabinet of President 
Lincoln. During the forty-seven years which intervened be- 
tween his initiation into and graduation from public life, Edward 
Bates was elected or appointed to the following offices: dele- 
gate to Missouri's first constitutional convention in 1820; first 
Attorney General of Missouri, 1820; State Representative in 
Missouri Legislature, 1822 and 1834; State Senator, 1830; 
United States District Attorney for Missouri, 1824; Missouri's 
second Representative in Congress, 1826; appointed Secretary 
of War in 1850 by President Fillmore but refused the ofifice; 
and Judge of the St. Louis Land Court, 1858. Besides holding 
these offices, he was three times brought prominently before 
the eyes of the nation. First, in 1847, while president of the 
first River and Harbor Improvement Convention held in 
America, Bates attracted the attention of both Canada and 
the United States. His great speech delivered before that 
body marks an epoch in the history of Federal Aid for internal 
improvements located off the tide-waters of the seas. This 
speech was made without previous preparation, and unfortu- 
nately, it was very imperfectly recorded. We are told that 
every reporter present forgot both duty and interest while 
listening to it and that the copies sent to the offices in New 
York, Chicago, and St. Louis, were the result of a hasty council 
of the various newspaper representatives who were forced to 
rely solely on their memory. Notwithstanding this incom- 
plete and very unsatisfactory manner of presentation to the 
public, the efifect of this speech on the nation was electrical. 



Fathers of the State. 143 

Even that great statesman, John C. Calhoun, who for years 
had consistently and successfully opposed the position here 
taken by Bates, was won over by the skill and logic of this 
exposition of national aid to strictly internal improvements. 

The second rise of Bates to national fame was his refusal 
in 1850 to accept the office of Secretary of War in President 
Fillmore's Cabinet. Not only was his appointment to this 
office unsolicited by Bates but it came as a surprise to him. 
Conditions for his acceptance were the most propitious, and 
the country could scarcely credit the news of his refusal. His 
reason, however, was satisfactory to all. He frankly explained 
that the cost of rearing his large family, which consisted of 
seventeen children, prevented his relinquishing even tempo- 
rarily his lucrative law practice. 

In 1856 Bates was president of the National Whig Con- 
vention which met in Baltimore. In 1858 Harvard University 
conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Laws in honor of his 
ability as a statesman, an orator, and a lawyer. Having be- 
come a Republican, Bates a third time attracted the attention 
of the Nation by being one of the presidential candidates voted 
on in the Chicago Convention of 1860, and after Lincoln's 
election he was offered the second choice of Cabinet positions, 
Seward having been placed for the office of Secretary of State. 
Bates chose the Attorney Generalship, which he held until 
1863-4, when ill health forced his resignation. His death in 
1869 was lamented by the entire Nation, and his funeral was 
one of the largest ever witnessed in this commonwealth. The 
life of Bates was a model in almost every respect. We cannot 
omit noticing one of his rules which is charged with revelations 
of character. On the best authority. Bates was never known 
to accept at law a bad cause however large the fee; and in 
numerous instances he engaged in a just cause with, little or no 
compensation.^ 



' Bates left a large number of descendants, some of them achieved great 
distinction in public life. One son, Barton Bates, held the high position of a 
Judge of the Supreme Court of Missouri and the ofiflce of Attorney General; 
another, John Bates, was breveted lieutenant-colonel for his services in the 
Union army during the Civil War, and in 1898, at the breaking out of the Spanish- 
American War, was made brigadier general in the regular army. 



144 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

In summarizing the salient features in the lives of Bates 
and Barton, one sees more points of likeness than contrast, 
except in regard to their personal habits. Both belong wholly 
to Missouri; both were lawyers of high rank; both had studied 
law under able jurists; both were interesting and at times 
brilliant speakers, and Barton's eloquence frequently reached 
the finish and polish of oratory; both were politicians and be- 
longed to the same party; both were exceedingly popular, and 
Bates exerted an influerice, both at home and over the nation, 
out of all proportion to the strength of his party in Missouri; 
and both died without having accumulated any considerable 
amount of property. 

When we turn, however, to compare the lives of Jones and 
Dodge we are struck with the relatively few points of likeness 
and the large number of contrasts. The career of each is today 
the prized possession of three American commonwealths, Jones 
belonging to the history of Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, 
and Dodge of Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Each left large 
families, each a son who was elected a Territorial Delegate to 
Congress and who later became a United States Senator. On 
the other hand, Jones was the possessor of one of the finest 
educations possible in his time and which he had obtained in 
the oldest of English universities; Dodge had received little 
schooling, and had obtained his entire education principally 
by rough experience with men and by self-instruction. The 
one was a scholar, and an accomplished linguist in six lan- 
guages; the other was familiar with only the English tongue 
and various Indian dialects. One was at the head of the legal 
profession of the west and knew personally every important 
member of the bar in that section; the other became at one 
time the most popular and the most celebrated military leader 
north of the Ohio and west of the Mississippi, and had camped 
with friends and foes from the Canadian line to the Arkansas 
River and from the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains. One 
was an eloquent and forceful speaker; the other a man of few 
words and prone to physical action. Jones starting with 
nothing amassed an immense fortune; Dodge inheriting a large 
estate lost much of it, and, although prosperous in most of his 



Fathers of the State. 145 

mining enterprises, never accumulated more than a moderate 
competence, owing to his HberaHty. While Jones was never 
more than a candidate for election to the United States Senate, 
Dodge rose step by step from the ofifice of deputy sheriff in the 
Territory of Louisiana to the Governorship of Wisconsin Ter- 
ritory, was elected a Delegate to Congress from that Territory, 
and finally became a United States Senator from the State of 
Wisconsin. It is even reported that if Dodge had allowed his 
name to be used against Van Buren's in 1844, he would have 
been nominated and elected president instead of Polk. 

General Henry Dodge, or "Honest Harry Dodge" as he 
was afiectionately called by the West, was born at Port Vin- 
cennes, October 12, 1782, of English and Scotch-Irish parents. 
His minority was spent under his mother's guidance in Ken- 
tucky and later under his father's direction in upper Louisiana. 
His military career began early in 1806 and continued for 
nearly three decades; his civil career covered a period of over 
half a century. The former won him a place in popular favor 
next to that occupied by General Jackson; the latter raised 
him to the high honor of being appointed the first Governor 
of the original Territory of Wisconsin and also of holding that 
office two terms after the separation of Iowa Territory; of 
being elected the Territorial Delegate to Congress from Wis- 
consin, when a change in national politics had lost him his 
former position; and finally of being elected the first United 
States Senator from the State of Wisconsin. Although not a 
great man either in war or in politics. Dodge was an eminently 
successful one in both. His talents were essentially those of a 
leader, having been so endowed by nature in both mind and 
body and so trained by an active life among frontiersmen and 
Indians. Since the achievements of Dodge in the field are 
familiar to students of western history, we will turn to his less 
known though perhaps equally interesting and valuable career 
in politics. 

In politics Dodge was a staunch Democrat, and a warm, 
personal friend of Jackson and Benton. As the chief executive 
of Wisconsin Territory he exerted the greatest influence in the 
enacting of good laws, both by forceful and decisively worded 

M S— 10 



146 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

messages and by his direct influence over the members of the 
legislature. He had that rare faculty of being able to main- 
tain his prerogatives as an official without making enemies. 
His success in dealing with scores of Indian tribes both in peace 
and war was marked and to them he was one of the most feared 
and respected men in the west. The red sons of the forest and 
plain, whether enemies or friends, relied on the word of Henry 
Dodge when the threats and promises of other leaders had 
failed to move them. His strong common sense and fundamental 
honesty is shown in his refusal either to meddle in the fight 
over the location of the capital of Wisconsin Territory or to 
accept as a gift any lots in Madison. 

After entering the halls of Congress, he always felt bound 
by the instructions of his legislature even though at times 
these were contrary to his personal convictions. He consist- 
ently advocated internal improvements, an adequate military 
force on the frontier, a duty on lead, and cheap land. His 
convictions on the land question were so statesmanlike that we 
marvel at the comparative silence of his biographers on this 
subject. As Governor of Wisconsin Territory in his second 
annual message of November 7, 1837, he said: "Land was the 
immediate gift of God to man, and from the earliest history of 
the world was designed for cultivation and improvement, and 
should cease to be an object of speculation." "Speculators in 
the public lands have purchased large tracts east of the Mis- 
sissippi in this Territory, which remain waste until they will 
sell for the highest prices; thereby retarding the growth and 
settlement of the Territory to the great injury of the actual 
settler." On February 24, 1853, in supporting the Homestead 
Bill, Senator Dodge delivered what must be regarded as one of 
the most truthful, prophetic, and powerful speeches that found 
its way into the record. That speech is now almost forgotten, 
but before its centennial can be observed, not only scholars 
but men of affairs and all progressive citizens will be familiar 
with the fundamental truths it contains. We can recall but 
few instances in American history where our statesmen and 
writers have as thoroughly appreciated so great an evil, so 



Fathers of the State. 147 

succinctly described it, and so accurately perceived its remedy 
as Senator Dodge did in this exposition of the land question. ^ 

Interesting as is the life of Henry Dodge, we do not regard 
it more fascinating than was the checkered career of General 
Duff Green. In several respects Duff Green was one of the most 
remarkable of those men who framed Missouri's first constitu- 
tion. He was beyond dispute the most versatile man in the 
convention; and became its greatest politician. In this latter 
capacity he attained a national reputation. Later he achieved 
honor as a diplomat, and finally in his old age received pos- 
terity's blessing by constructing a railroad and founding a 
city. 

A native of Kentucky, Duff Green was related to some of 
the best and oldest families in Virginia. At an early age he 
taught school, studied law and was admitted to the bar, and sold 
goods as a country merchant. Having immigrated to Missouri 
Territory about 1817 he engaged in politics, mail contracts, 
speculation, and also had a large law practice. He established 
the first mail stage line west of the Mississippi river; and founded 
the town of Chariton, being its first postmaster. After the 



• The following extract has been selected from that speech: "The soil of a 
country is the gift of the Creator to His creatures, and, in a government of the 
people, that gift should not become the object of speculation and monopoly. 
Springing from the earth and destined to return to it, every man desires to possess 
some of it, wants a spot he can call his own. It is a deep and absorbing feeling 
which no people have manifested more strongly than the Americans. If you 
desire to render this Republic indestructible, to extinguish every germ of agra- 
rianism, and secure for ages the quiet enjoyment of vested rights, you should give 
an interest in the soil to every man who asks it. If every quarter section of the 
public land was the bona fl.de property of an actual settler, it would do more to 
perpetuate our liberties than all the constitutions. State or National, which have 
ever been devised. Incorporate every man with the soil, throw around him the 
blessed endearments of home, and you bind him in an allegiance stronger than a 
thousand oaths." When we recall that these words were spoken not by a rabid 
demagogue or a pauper social disturber, but by an old man in his seventy-first 
year, who was a United States Senator, who held large landed interests, and who 
based his statements on a personal experience in public life that had covered 
nearly half a century, then the weight of their truth is increased tenfold. 

If it were not too much of a digression we would be glad to enter even briefly 
into the private life of this celebrated "Captain of Aggressive Civilization," to 
describe his views on such questions as religion and slavery, to eulogize his re- 
markable mother, Nancy Ann Hunter, who alone in the annals of this nation gave 
birth to two United States Senators, Henry Dodge and Lewis F. Linn, and to 
expand upon this, the only example in our history, of a father and son — Henry 
Dodge and Augustus Caesar Dodge — sitting together first in the lower house of 
our national legislature and finally in the Senate chamber. 



148 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

framing of Missouri's first constitution, Dufif Green was elected 
a representative from Howard county in 1820 to the State 
legislature and in 1822 was elected a State Senator. In 1821 
he was chosen Brigadier-General of the first brigade of the first 
division of the Missouri militia, and owing to his holding this 
office together with his services in Kentucky in the War of 1812, 
he was always known as General DufT Green. In 1823 Green 
became owner and editor of Benton's organ, the St. Louis 
Enquirer, and two years later purchased and edited the United 
States Telegraph at Washington. From that time to his death 
in 1875, he was always more or less before the public. As 
editor of the Telegraph he became one of the most powerful 
factors in national politics, and is credited with having been 
one of the chief instruments in the election of Jackson in 1828. 
His paper was then given the government patronage, and this 
placed Green in good financial circumstances. His subsequent 
break with Jackson in 1830, his support of Clay in 1832 and of 
Calhoun in 1836, did not ruin him, as it did many other pol- 
iticians. His paper continued to wield the greatest influence, 
and was known for its aggressiveness and independence, and 
for its large and philosophical views on national finance. 

General Green visited Europe frequently on important 
public missions, conferring with leading statesmen and crowned 
heads. In 1843 he was sent to Mexico to aid in conducting 
negotiations for the acquisition of Texas; and under President 
Taylor's administration was again dispatched there on public 
business. 

In later life he took the contract for constructing the 
Tennessee Railroad from Dalton, Georgia, to Knoxville, Tenn- 
essee, and was one of the founders of the former city. In the 
lives of few men are there crowded so many different and 
dramatic events as are revealed in Green's career. Ln many 
ways it is an epitome of the biography of the entire convention 
of 1820. 

The public life both civil and military of these forty-one 
men is quite sufficient to justify our stating that seldom in the 
history of any commonwealth established after 1789 has there 
been a more notable gathering of state constitution framers 





jOIIX KKK lOM'S. 
I'K.m H..iick\s ///../. .1/.,. Ill J57. 



JOHN I). COOK. 
Il..iick\ ///•/. Mo. III. 266. 





JOHN scon. 

I'roin ll..,ak\s ///.(. .1/-.. 111. n 



|0\\1'1I\\ KA.MS.X'l. 
Kn.iM llnuck's //n/ Mo. III. 2(, 





B. II. RI-.KVliS. 
Iruiii llcuck's //(../. .\lo 111. 25.y. 



IIIR.WI II. KAHI.R 
I'toiii H.. lick's ///../. .U';. III. i(< 



soMi', i)i-;i,i:(i.\i i-.s 10 nil', xiissoi ri consiiiiiion.m 

U)N\ I.MION 1820. 



Fathers of the State. 149 

than was this one. It included the first United States Cabinet 
official appointed from west of the Mississippi river, three men 
who later represented Missouri and Wisconsin in the United 
States Senate, and, so far as influence on Missouri's constitution 
is concerned, a fourth United States Senator might be men- 
tioned. ^ Of those who had or were to enter the lower house 
of Congress there numbered four;^° and two delegates later sat 
in the gubernatorial chair of Wisconsin and of Missouri." One 
delegate was to hold the office of lieutenant-governor ; two that 
of attorney general; two that of secretary of state; and two 
that of state auditor. ^2 Xwo of the leading members of this 
convention became judges of the Supreme Court of Missouri, 
two were later circuit judges in this State, and one had pre- 
sided over the first circuit court held west of the Mississippi 
River.^^ 

The membership of the convention is also noteworthy in 
the remarkably large number of state legislators who composed 
it. The laws of five American commonwealths today bear the 
influence of twenty- three of the framers of Missouri's first 
constitution. Including its secretary, the convention com- 
manded the ability of sixteen state senators, and sixteen state 



' Edward Bates, appointed Secretary of War by President Fillmore, 1850 , 
and resigned; later appointed Attorney General by President Lincoln 1861-1864; 
David Barton, first United States Senator from Missouri 1820-1830; Henry Dodge, 
first United States Senator from Wisconsin 1848-1857. Thomas H. Benton, 
the colleague of Barton, was United States Senator from Missouri 1820-1850. 

"Edward Bates, Missoiu-i's second Representative, 1826; Henry Dodge, 
first Delegate from W^isconsin Territory, 1841-1845; Samuel S. Hammond, Rep- 
resentative from Georgia, 1803; John Scott. Missouri's third Territorial Delegate, 
1816 (17) — 1820, and Missouri's first Representative, 1820-1826. 

" Henry Dodge, first territorial governor of Wisconsin Territory, 1836-1841, 
and again, 1845-1848; Alexander McNair, first state governor of Missouri, 1820- 
1824. 

"Benjamin H. Reeves, Missouri's second lieutenant-governor, 1824; Edward 
Bates, Missouri's first attorney general. 1820, and John Rice Jones, former at- 
torney general of Indiana Territory, 1805; Samuel S. Hammond, later secretary 
of state of South Carolina, about 1830. and William G. Pettus (secretary of the 
convention), Missoxu-i's second secretary of state, 1821-24; Benjamin H. Reeves, 
Missouri's second state auditor, 1821-23, and Hiram H. Baber, Missouri's sixth 
state auditor, 1837-45. 

'•John D. Cook and John Rice Jones, two of the first three judges of the 
Supreme Court of Missouri, 1820; David Barton, judge of Northern Circuit of 
Missouri Territory 1815-18, held first Circuit Court west of the Mississippi; 
James Evans and Richard S. Thomas, Circuit Court Judges of Missouri, 1837 
and 1822. 



150 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

representatives, — there being eight members who later sat in 
both houses." In fact to each of the first ten General Assem- 
blies of the State of Missouri there were elected from one to 
eleven men who had sat in this convention, and two became 
the president pro tempore of the Senate.^* Nor was their direct 
influence on Missouri's legislature limited to the common- 
wealth period. During the previous eight years of the exist- 
ence of Missouri Territory there appear on the general assembly 
rolls the names of eight men as members of her legislative 
council and eight as representatives who in 1820 sat as delegates 
in the convention. ^^ In each of the four general assemblies of 
Missouri Territory there were from four to eight members who 
were elected delegates in 1820. Thus for a period of thirty- 
eight years the laws of Missouri were more or less moulded by 
those who framed her first constitution. And for eleven years 
her only representatives in Congress were those who were dele- 
gates in 1820. What is still more remarkable is that Missouri's 
first constitution was directly influenced by her first three 
United States Senators, one of them, Benton, — although not 
a delegate — continued in the upper national chamber for thirty 
years. But, excepting Edward Bates, Duff Green, and Henry 
Dodge, not a single member of this convention held an im- 
portant civil position in public life twenty years after the 
framing of Missouri's first constitution. A new generation of 



" The five states are Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, and South 
Carolina. The following delegates had been or became state senators in Mis- 
souri: Barton, 1834; Bates, 1830; Bettis, 1828; Brown, 1826; Burckhartt, 1824; 
1830; Buckner, 1822; Chouteau, 1820; Dawson, 1824, 1834; Emmons, 1820; 
Green. 1822; Perry, 1820; Pratte, 1820; Reeves, 1820, 1832; Talbott, 1820; Thomas, 
1826; (Pettus, 1832). Of these the eight who were also representatives were: 
Bates, 1822. 1834; Bettis, 1822, 1824, 1826; Burckhartt, 1822, 1826; Buckner. 
1830; Dawson, 1832; Emmons, 1836, 1838; Green, 1820; Reeves, Kentucky Legis- 
lature. Besides these were eight who held seats in the lower house of Missoiu-i, 
Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. Nathaniel Cook (Missouri). 
1822; Hammond (Georgia and South Carolina); Heath (Missouri), 1820; Henry 
(South Carolina); Lillard (Missouri), 1820, and also in Tennessee Legislature; 
McFerron (Missouri), 1820; Ramsay (Kentucky), and also in Missouri Legis- 
lature, 1822; Ray (Missouri), 1820. 

■ •Emmons, 1822; Burckhartt, 1830. 

»• The eight delegates who had been in the legislative council were Emmons, 
Hammond, Scott, Jones, Perry, Riddick, J. Cook, Dawson; in the house of repre- 
sentatives, Thomas, Byrd, Heath, Dawson, N. Cook, Talbott, Barton. Sullivan. 
Hammond was president of the first legislative coimcil in 1813, and Emmons in 
the last in 1818. Barton was speaker of the house in 1818. 



Fathers of the State. 151 

political leaders had risen, and in the place of Barton, Burck- 
hartt, Buckner, the two Cooks, Dawson, McNair, Scott, Em- 
mons, Evans, Hammond, Jones, Reeves, and other popular 
and influential members of the convention of 1820, the pilots 
of the ship of state were such noted men as Atchison, Campbell, 
Rollins, Price, Doniphan, Phelps, Woodson, Boggs, Jackson, 
Gardenhire, Switzler, Bay, Broadhead, Bingham and others. 

In addition to holding many minor public offices as those 
of county clerk, recorder, sheriff and treasurer, and justice of 
the peace, some of the delegates were to be or had been ap- 
pointed to important civil positions under the National Govern- 
ment, besides those already mentioned. Among these were the 
offices of Marshal, Deputy Marshal, Attorney General, Deputy 
Attorney General, District Attorney, Lieutenant-Governor or 
Commandant of upper Louisiana, Surveyor General and Deputy 
Surveyor General of Illinois, Missouri and Arkansas, Register 
and Clerk of various Land Offices, Judge of the St. Louis Land 
Court, Receiver of Public Money at St. Louis, and Diplomat. ^^ 

The war record of the convention delegates and its secretary 
is also sufficiently noteworthy to warrant attention. Extending 
at least from 1775, if not prior to that year, to 1850 this record 
embraced the first three great national wars of the United 
States besides including the famous Black Hawk War and many 
Indian engagements. Twenty-one men of this convention, or 
exactly one-half its membership including the secretary, had 
seen or were to see military service. Of these, three had served 
as colonels in the Revolutionary War ; ^* eighteen had been in 



"Baber, United States Deputy Marshal (1820. 1830), and United States 
Marshal Missouri (1852); Barton, Deputy Attorney General Missoiu-i Territory 
(1813); Bates, Judge St. Louis Land Court (1858); J. Cook, United States Dis- 
trict Attorney Missouri; Dodge, United States Marshal Missouri Territory and 
State (1813-1822); Findlay, Register United States Land Office Lexington, Mis- 
souri (1823); Green, United States Diplomat; Hammond, First Lieutenant 
Governor or Commandant of upper Louisiana (1804); Jones, Attorney General 
Indian Territory (1801-05); McNair, Register St. Louis Land Office (1818); 
Pratte. Receiver Public Money at St. Louis; Rector, United States Surveyor 
General of Illinois, Missouri and Arkansas; Riddick, Secretary Board of Land 
Commissioners at St. Louis (1808); Sullivan, United States Deputy Surveyor 
General of Illinois, Missouri and Arkansas; Pettus, clerk Land Office at St. Louis 
(1818). 

'• Hammond, Henry, and Lillard. 



152 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

the War of 1812,^^ ranging in rank from volunteer to brigadier- 
general; four later served in the Black Hawk War; 2° and one in 
the Mexican War.^^ Boone and Dodge gained the greatest 
distinction in the field of War. One attained the higher rank; 
the other, the greater popularity. Boone held the longer 
record and after twenty-one years of continuous service in the 
United States army was finally commissioned lieutenant- 
colonel at the age of seventy-one. ^^ Prior to his connection 
with the regular army, he had fought in the War of 1812 and had 
seen service in various Indian campaigns. Dodge made an 
enviable record in his campaign against Black Hawk, and, 
after the overthrow of that celebrated Indian Chief, won fame 
in the United States army as colonel of the first regiment of 
dragoons in the army history of the United States. Prior to 
his connection with the regular army, Dodge had continuously 
held some rank in either the Missouri or Wisconsin militias from 
1806. The war record of Dodge covers a period of nearly 
twenty-nine years; that of Boone over thirty-one years. 

While the military and the civil public careers of western 
pioneers are both interesting and significant, we are inclined 
to regard with some favor those bits of biographical information 
which are usually found in the back of Bibles, or in the columns 
of the press, or which can be obtained only from descendants 
and friends of those long departed. We cannot here examine 
all the wealth of detail extant relating to the delegates and will 
generalize on such points as occupation, nativity, descent, 
education, economic position, and age. Under the best con- 
ditions it is almost impossible to verify every statement relating 
to this kind of information. And, we have therefore inclined 
towards sacrificing spectacular and striking generalizations for 
the sake of accuracy. One of the most fascinating and profitable 
studies of any people is that relating to their occupation. To 



'•Barton. Bates, Boone, Byrd, Cleaver, N. Cook, Dawson, Dodge, Emmona, 
Green, Jones, Llllard, McNair, Pratte, Ramsey, Rector, Riddick and Pettus. 
Dodge was brigadier-general of the Missouri militia; Ramsay held the same rank 
in the Kentucky nailitia. 

>• Boone, Brown, Byrd, and Dodge. Dodge was called the hero of this war. 

" Boone. 

» 1853. 



Fathers of the State. 153 

the historian the means employed by man to gain a livelihood 
takes rank in importance with his religion and race. To the 
pioneer it was as important and pressing as it is today to the 
greatest specialist in the city. There is this difference to be 
noted, however: the pioneer was as a rule more versatile; the 
twentieth century man better trained. The one successfully 
pursued from two to a half dozen different occupations; the 
latter is more frequently engaged in but one line of labor. Even 
in politics, where are found the followers of every occupation, 
and which is as cosmopolitan in professions and trade as New 
York in people, there had not appeared in 1820 that general 
devotion on the part of one class of citizens which later became 
so marked. Of course politics was not then so profitable, unless 
one wished to incur public disfavor by land speculation, and 
the spoils system had not yet become the Mecca of public life. 
But, waiving these two extraneous reasons, we still believe 
that politics, in common with most all other occupations, ex- 
cepting the law, was not so specialized a means of livelihood 
in 1820 as it is today. Nor was politics so peculiarly the pos- 
session of the legal class as it is today, although practically all 
lawyers were also politicians. Of the forty-one delegates 
elected to the convention of 1820, thirty were more or less 
active in politics, of whom only nine were essentially lawyers.^' 
Every lawyer in the convention was a politician, but all the 
politicians were not lawyers. 

Although the various occupations of each delegate are 
now fairly well known, it is still almost an impossibility to as- 
certain which was the principal vocation of each one at that 
time. Duff Green was a lawyer with a large practice; he was 
also an astute politician, a successful business man, a large 
land owner and speculator, had formerly been a teacher, and 
later became an editor, publisher, railroad contractor, and 
diplomat. Similar examples of the difficulty of selecting a 
delegate's principal means of livelihood are found in the lives 
of a majority of these men. Was Dodge a lead mine operator 
or a farmer; was Jones one of these, or was he a lawyer and 
politician; was Nathaniel Cook a politician, a farmer or a sur- 

•• Heath practiced law but he was more essentially a business man. 



154 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

veyor; was Boone a farmer or a surveyor; was Bettis a mer- 
chant, a farmer, or a doctor; was McFerron a politician or a 
teacher? We are even driven to this: Every delegate except 
two engaged in two or more lines of work. In 1820 these 
forty-one men represented eight occupations under the very 
broad classifications of law, politics, business — including mer- 
cantile and mining pursuits, fur trading, salt manufacturing 
and finance — , agriculture — including farming and land owning — , 
medicine, civil engineering — confined to surveying — , education — 
confined to teaching — , and journalism. 

Politics absorbed the partial attention of thirty delegates 
but it was the sole occupation of only one or two of these. 
Besides the nine lawyers in the convention politics included 
eight business men, nine engaged in agriculture or land owning, 
two in medicine, two in engineering and two in education. 
This almost universal passion for politics and public life was 
characteristic of the west at this time. Every lawyer was 
seized with it. Every man who had attained any degree of 
popularity wanted to hold office. As a rule it included the best 
and most able men in a community. Politics was then an 
honorable profession to which all turned even at a sacrifice. 
It is academic whether these men regarded politics as a duty 
or as a pleasant recreation. At all events we are certain that 
very few looked upon it as a great prize except for the honor 
attached to it. No man was so busy, so engaged in accumulat- 
ing wealth, so learned, or so able that he spurned public office. 
We believe several causes brought about this admirable state 
of mind. The widespread and long continued interest of the 
colonies in public affairs for nearly a quarter of a century; the 
internal crisis between 1783 and 1789; the relations with Eng- 
land and Spain in the nineties; the armed truce or masked war 
with England and France during the first decade of the new 
century; the Louisiana Purchase; the War of 1812; the numerous 
Indian wars; the great domestic questions which arose from 
1783 to 1820; all trained the American people to a consideration 
of public questions. Intense interest in politics tends to create 
a desire to enter public life. This is more quickly acted upon 
when there is an honor instead of a stigma attached to office 



Fathers of the State. 155 

holding; and when the greatest opposition to overcome is 
merely votes and not machines and vested interests. The 
conditions in these respects were ideal in 1820 for a citizen's 
participation in public life. Another favoring factor was the 
then more circumscribed fields of intellectual activity. This 
gave an impetus unknown today to the study of political science, 
which study was, however, as intrinsically interesting and 
absorbing then as it has ever been. In addition, might be 
mentioned the greater relative power of the orator and con- 
versationalist as compared with that of the editor. The latter 
was handicapped for his information and in his circulation by 
the poor mail facilities. Missouri with a white population of 
over 55,000 in 1820, had but five newspapers, and these were 
located in four towns. Only one newspaper to supply the 
news to the thousands of settlers west and north of St. Charles 
and St. Louis! Only one paper to inform the territory lying 
south and west of Jackson, Missouri! Today a town of 10,000 
has from two to five papers, and its inhabitants take perhaps 
a dozen others printed within a radios of one hundred and 
fifty miles. Today no county is without its weekly edition of 
local news, and many villages of less than five hundred inhabit- 
ants have their own press. The newspaper of 1820 was as 
influential wherever it circulated as any paper is today among 
its subscribers, but natural and mechanical obstacles pre- 
scribed its limits then within narrow bounds. The personality 
of the politician — using this word in its original and better 
meaning — and his ability as a speaker, were therefore enhanced; 
In no profession are these qualities when highly developed 
either so advantageously and widely displayed or so assiduously 
cultivated as in the practice of law. And, no profession, we 
believe, has so directly and so significantly influenced our 
government and laws as the legal class. It is, therefore, quite 
remarkable that only ten of the forty-one delegates were mem- 
bers of the Missouri territorial bar; and one of these was more 
accurately a business man than a lawyer. Today, over fifty 
per cent of the upper house members of our state legislature 
are lawyers, and our state executives are as learned in law as 
our attorneys-general; in 1820 less than twenty-five per cent 



156 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

of the delegates who framed the first constitution of Missouri 
followed that profession, and this state's first governor had 
never been admitted to the bar, — as far as could be learned. 
The significance, if not the explanation, of this peculiar attitude 
on the part of the people of Missouri in 1820 can be appreciated 
only after a consideration of the history of the Missouri terri- 
torial bar. 

During the Spanish regime in upper Louisiana there was 
no lawyer class. This was due primarily to the manner of law 
interpretation that prevailed. The American occupation in 
1804 immediately attracted to this district members of the 
bars of many states and territories. Lawyers of ability and 
prominence immigrated here from every section of the nation. 
The north, central and south Atlantic commonwealths sent 
representatives, as well as that country which lies between 
the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. Con- 
sidering the small population of upper Louisiana, the amount 
of litigation was remarkable, and much of this was highly 
remunerative. The hundreds of suits over the valuable Spanish 
land grants proved an especially lucrative field for the legal 
profession. This kind of litigation frequently involved prizes 
that would have ransomed a prince, and the rewards to ad- 
vocates were in proportion to the value of the case. Under 
such favorable circumstances it is not surprising that we find 
a very large bar in Missouri during the territorial period. Nor 
was this bar less noted for its ability than for its numbers. In 
fact the former characteristic is more prominent and significant 
than the latter. The nature of the cases, the mixed popula- 
tion, the previous domination and the then but slightly dimin- 
ished power of the Spanish law, all required a broad and acute 
legal mind to win success in court. The result was a bar which 
in pure, legal ability undoubtedly stood very high.^* Other 
states have produced greater lawyers; many have had a larger 
bar; but few states in proportion to their population have had 
so many lawyers of such remarkable ability as Missouri did 
from 1804 to 1820. It is hardly an exaggeration to state that 
owing to the conditions named, together with the compactness 

" Cf., also Bay, Bench and Bar of Missouri, pp. VI. ff ; Houck. op cit.. III. 12. 



Fathers of the State. 157 

of the settlements in Missouri Territory, and the peculiar 
organization of the courts, a lawyer of little ability could not 
make a living by his profession in this district. Only lawyers 
learned in the law and skilled in pleading and cross-examina- 
tion could survive. Therefore we find such men as these con- 
stituting the legal class at that time: Ezra Hunt, Henry S. 
Geyer, Silas Bent, John F. Ryland, Hamilton R. Gamble, 
William C. Carr, Abiel Leonard, David Todd, Mathias Mc- 
Girk, Robt. W. Wells, Geo. Tomkins, Thomas H. Benton, 
Rufus Easton, Rufus Hemstead, Johnson Ranney, John B. C. 
Lucas, Alexander Gray, Rufus Pettibone, Luke E. Lawless, 
Peyton R. Hayden, Nathaniel Beverly Tucker, Joshua Barton, 
Frederick Bates, David Barton, Edward Bates, Alexander 
Buckner, John D. Cook, James Evans, Duff Green, John Rice 
Jones, John Scott, and R. S. Thomas. It is a remarkable fact 
that of these noteworthy men only the last nine were elected 
delegates! Perhaps a few like Lucas had been defeated on 
account of being slavery restrictionists, but, we are certain, 
these formed a very small percentage of their class.^^ This 
together with other evidence would indicate that the people 
of Missouri in 1820 preferred to have their constitution framed 
by other classes of men. They did not realize that the legal 
class by virtue of its ability alone wields an influence in the 
field of legislation out of all proportion to its numbers, and that 
in the convention or forum it has always enjoyed a preeminent 
position. This influence and position of lawyers in law making 
bodies have in this country been strengthened by their ability 
to cooperate with other classes. And in this respect the lawyer's 
most natural ally has been and still is the business man. 

An eminent authority has said that at least nine-tenths 
of all legislation owe their origin, directly or indirectly, to the 
associated influence of the merchant, trader, and banker on 
the one hand, and the lawyer on the other. ^^ We are not pre- 
pared to examine the correctness of this statement, but, we 
believe, it is well substantiated in the framing of Missouri's 



>' Easton had died at this time; and Hunt and Gamble had not then achieved 
distinction. 

" Foote, Beruh and Bar of the Southwest, p. 3. 



158 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

first constitution. Although only eleven business men^' and 
nine lawyers were elected delegates to the convention, their 
influence in that body was without a serious check. In the 
committees of the convention they were practically supreme. 
The president of the convention was a lawyer; the legislative 
committee was composed of a lawyer, a business man, and a 
politician; the executive committee was composed of a lawyer, 
a surveyor, and a farmer — the latter being the brother of a 
lawyer; the judiciary committee was composed of three lawyers; 
the select committee, which reported on the work of the three 
named committees, was composed of three lawyers, and a 
farmer; the committee on a bill of rights, etc., was composed 
of a farmer, a business man, and a lawyer; the committee on 
the schedule and banking was composed of a lawyer, a business 
man, and a teacher; the revision committee, or committee on 
style, and the enrollment committee were each composed of 
two lawyers, and a teacher. In seven of these eight committees 
the business man and the lawyer constituted a majority of the 
membership; and in the eighth these two classes had the co- 
operation of a surveyor whose interests were identical with 
theirs.2^ Of the twenty-five committee places on these eight 
committees, one was held by a surveyor; three, by teachers; 
three, by landed men; one, by a politician; three, by business 
men; and fourteen, by lawyers. 

This remarkable strength of the lawyer class is the more 
significant when we realize that there were thirteen delegates 
in the convention who were mainly interested in agriculture 
and landholding.29 We would not be understood as stating 
that on all questions that arose there was a line of division in 
the convention between the lawyers and business men on the 



«' The following delegates were engaged principally in business, ranging 
from a tavern keeper and store-keeper to a banker and fur merchant: Baber, 
Burckhartt, Chouteau, Dodge (mine operator), Emmons, Hammond, (spec- 
ulator, more allied to the business than to the agricultural class). Heath. Houts, 
McNair, Pratte, Riddick. 

«» The members of the executive committee were Rector, a surveyor; N. 
Cook, a land holder and a brother of J. Cook, the lawyer; and Evans, a lawyer. 

'•The following delegates belonged to this class: Bettis, Boone — a sur- 
veyor but, we believe, more interested in land at this time — , Brown, Byrd, Cleaver, 
N. Cook, Henry, Hutchings, Lillard, Perry, Ramsay, Ray, Wallace. 



Fathers of the State. 159 

one hand, and the agriculturists on the other. Such is not 
true; but it is correct to say that the influence of the former 
was much greater than that of the latter, and further that 
Missouri's first constitution was largely the work of the former, 
even though the lawyers and business men did not comprise 
one-half of the delegates. 

Besides the occupations named that were represented in 
the convention, there were three others which were each fol- 
lowed by two delegates. The medical profession was followed 
by Dawson and Talbott; the civil engineering, by Rector and 
Sullivan; and the teaching, by Findlay and McFerron. Of 
these six men McFerron and Findlay were the most active in 
the convention, and achieved the least financial success in life. 

Another feature of this body that attracts attention is 
its cosmopolitan appearance. There were represented in the 
convention seven lines of descent. The English race claimed 
a majority of the delegates; the Welsh, two; the Scotch, at 
least two; the Irish, at least four; the Scotch-Irish, which, we 
understand, is generally distinguished by genealogists from 
the Scotch, at least four; the French, two; and the German, 
one.^° Even more diversified was the nativity of the members 
of the convention. The slave-holding commonwealths, as one 
would expect, were the birthplaces of a majority of the dele- 
gates. Contrary to popular opinion, Kentucky did not lead 
in this respect; to Virginia was this honor given. The former 
furnished eight of Missouri's State Founders; the latter, thirteen. 
Standing next to Virginia and Kentucky was Maryland with 
four delegates, and, what is equally at variance with accepted 
notions on this point, Pennsylvania followed with three dele- 
gates. The place of birth of the remaining members of the 
convention is as follows: Tennessee, then part of North Car- 
olina, two; North Carolina, two; upper Louisiana, while under 
Spanish rule, two; Indiana Territory, before the organization 
of the old Northwest Territory, one; New York, Vermont, 



" Green and Jones, Welsh; Barton and Henry, Scotch; Hutchings, McFerron, 
Ramsay, and Thomas, Irish; Cleaver, Findlay, McNair, and Talbott, Scotch- 
Irish; Chouteau and Pratte, French; Burckhartt, German; and the other dele- 
gates, excepting several that we were unable to trace, English. 



160 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

South Carolina, Wales, and Ireland, each one.^^ It is quite 
a commentary on the wane of the French influence that only 
two delegates were of French blood. Less than sixteen years 
before when the first convention was held in upper Louisiana, 
protesting against the act of Congress of 1804, the French 
representatives were in the majority; and, if we look back four 
years further to the close of the eighteenth century, we see 
that race the most influential west of the Mississippi River. 
We recall few instances in history where an enlightened, peace- 
ful, and fairly prosperous race, has ever been so ignored in gov- 
ernmental affairs in such a short time by any other means than 
by force. 

Closely related to nativity is the place of one's rearing. 
If in considering the latter we mclude the places of residence 
in which the delegates had lived before coming to what is now 
Missouri, there is no state that holds as prominent a position 
in this respect as was met with under our discussion of places 
of birth. While Virginia was the mother of thirteen delegates, 
she had the exclusive control of but three of these before their 
settlement in Missouri. Kentucky was the single home and 
residence of only six delegates. Five members of the con- 
vention had been reared and had lived in Virginia and Ken- 
tucky; two in Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee; one in Vir- 
ginia and Georgia; one in Virginia and Tennessee; one in Vir- 
ginia and Illinois Territory; one in Virginia and Indiana Terri- 
tory; one in Kentucky and Indiana Territory; one in Kentucky 
and Maryland; one in Kentucky, Maryland and Ohio; one in 
Kentucky and upper Louisiana; three in Tennessee; two in 



«' Those born in Virginia were Baber, Bates, Clark, J. Cook, N. Cook, Evans, 
Hammond, Hutcliings, Lillard, Ramsay, Rector, Riddick, and Scott; In Ken- 
tucky, Boone, Buckner, Cleaver, Green, Ray, Reeves, Sullivan, and Wallace; 
in Maryland, Burckhartt, Dawson, Talbott, Thomas; in Pennsylvania, Findlay, 
McNair, and Perry; in Tennessee, Barton and Byrd; in North Carolina, Bettis 
and Brown; in upper Louisiana, Chouteau and Pratte; In Indiana Territory, 
Dodge; in New York, Heath; in Vermont, Emmons; in South Carolina. 
Henry; in Ireland, McFerron; and in Wales, Jones. The birthplace of Houts 
is not known. The Jackson Herald. June 24, 1820, gives the birthplaces of the 
delegates as follows: Virginia, 16; Kentucky, 8; Pennsylvania, 4; Maryland, 4; 
North Carolina, 3; Missoiu-I, 2; Vermont, 1; Delaware, 1; Tennessee, 1; Ireland. 
1; and Wales, 1. The total number of delegates according to that paper is forty^ 
two, which is not accurate. It possibly Included the secretary of the convention 
but this would not correct its figures on this point. 



Fathers of the State. 161 

Maryland; one in North Carolina; one in North Carolina and 
South Carolina; three in Pennsylvania; one in Vermont and New 
York; one in New York; one in Ireland; one in Wales, England, 
Indiana and Illinois Territories; one in upper Louisiana; and one 
in upper Louisian and Canada.^- On the basis of former resi- 
dence and former friendships thirty-six of the delegates naturally 
fall into five groups. The largest number came from Mary- 
land, Virginia and Kentucky. These three states, closely 
related in history by the ties of blood, interest, and position, 
had been the birthplace and home of seventeen delegates. The 
next group in the order of importance was that from Tennessee 
and the Carolinas. Its membership included eight delegates, 
most of whom came from eastern Tennessee, The old North- 
west Territory group was composed of five delegates, who came 
from Ohio, Indiana Territory, and Illinois Territory. The 
Pennsylvania group and the upper Louisiana group were each 
composed of three delegates. Thus, instead of there having 
been a large number of sources of the delegates, we find that all 
the members of the convention except six can be traced to five 



" The three delegates from Virginia and the year of their immigration to 
Missouri were Bates (1814). Evans (1807), Riddick (1803); from Virginia and 
Kentucky. Boone (1800), Clark (1817), J. Cook (1815), N. Cook. (1799), Hutch- 
ings (1800); from Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Baber (1815), Ramsay 
(1817) ; from Virginia and Georgia, Hammond (1804) ; from Virginia and Tennessee. 
Lillard (1817); from Virginia and Illinois Territory. Rector (1810); from Virginia 
and Indiana Territory. Scott (1804); from Kentucky. Cleaver (1816). Green 
(1817), Ray (1818), Reeves (1819), Sullivan (at least as early as 1815), Wallace 
(at least as early as 1818); from Kentucky and Indiana Territory. Buckner (1818); 
from Kentucky and Maryland. Burckhartt (about 1815 or before); from Ken- 
tucky. Maryland, and Ohio, Thomas (1810); from Kentucky and upper Louisiana, 
Dodge (1796); from Tennessee. Barton (1809). Brown (1804). Byrd (1799); from 
Maryland, Dawson (1800), Talbott (at least by 1815); from North Carolina. 
Bettis (1806); from North Carolina and South Carolina, Henry (1817); from 
Pennsylvania, Findlay (1818), McNair (1804), Perry (1806); from Vermont and 
New York, Emmons (1807); from New York, Heath (1808); from Ireland, McFer- 
ron (1802); from Wales. England, Indian Territory and Illinois Territory, Jones 
(1810); from upper Louisiana and Canada, Pratte (born in Ste. Genevieve). 
Chouteau was born in St. Louis. The birthplace and former residence of Houts 
are unknown, also the date of his arrival in Missouri. The dates given as the 
years of the arrivals in upper Louisiana of the delegates are in some cases our 
approximations of the exact time. We were in several instances unable to ob- 
tain exact information. Each date, we believe, is, however, accurate in stating 
the year in which a delegate was living in upper Louisiana or Missouri Territory. 
The error, if any, is in the direction of an understatement rather than an over- 
statement of the length of time a delegate had been an inhabitant of this Terri- 
tory. 

M S— 11 



162 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

common sources. We think this is important in an understand- 
ing of the personnel of the convention. The delegates were 
isolated from each other neither before nor after their immi- 
gration west of the Mississippi river. Nor were they strangers 
to each other at either time. They had met in the market, 
had been companions in the skirmish, had sat side by side in 
legislative bodies, had known each other as friends or as foes 
before the bar. Some were related by the bonds of marriage 
and friendship, others by the ties of business and policy. Al- 
though their average residence in upper Louisiana was but ten 
years, excluding Chouteau and Pratte, who were born in that 
district, and Houts of whom we could learn very little, their 
acquaintanceships stretch back into the eighteenth century. 
And when they met to frame Missouri's first constitution each 
knew the character as well as the reputation of many of his 
colleagues. 

Some of the delegates were members of the same religious 
denomination, but our information is too incomplete in this 
respect to insure accurate generalizations. We do know, how- 
ever, that the following sects and religions had followers in the 
convention: Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, 
and Roman Catholic. Formal religion did not play as im- 
portant a part in the lives of the men and women of that day 
as it did later. We do not believe that even half of the dele- 
gates were members of any church at this time. This was 
partly due, in the case of some of the delegates, to a lack of in- 
terest in this subject, but was more probably the result of the few, 
scattered churches and ministers in Missouri Territory. In many 
cases we are told the religion that was professed by a delegate's 
parents, who had lived in the settled states east of the Mis- 
sissippi River, but nothing in regard to the religion of the dele- 
gate himself. In other instances we have record of the delegate 
joining some religious denomination years after Missouri had 
entered the Union. There was also a number of delegates who 
were Masons. Alexander Buckner had been the first Grand 
Master of the Grand Lodge of Indiana Territory, and had 
organized the first Masonic Lodge in Missouri Territory,] 
"Unity Lodge" at Jackson; Benjamin Emmons, had brought 



Fathers of the State. 163 

the first charter for the Masonic Lodge at St. Charles; and 
Thomas F. Riddick, who together with Alexander McNair, 
Thomas H. Benton, Edward and Frederick Bates, William G. 
Pettus and others established the first two Masonic Lodges in 
St. Louis, was the first Grand Master of Missouri. 

Before closing our treatment of the private lives of the 
delegates we will make a few statements on what is usually 
regarded as two of the most important subjects in the study 
of biography, — education and economic position. The educa- 
tional equipment of the members of the first constitutional 
convention of Missouri was an honor and an asset to that body. 
Some of the delegates had received little schooling but most 
of these had corrected this by a close application to books. 
Only seven delegates, however, were in this unfortunate class 
of self-educated men. Information along this line in the case 
of seven other delegates has not been brought to light. All 
the remaining twenty-six delegates had received good educa- 
tions and many of these, e. g., Jones, Scott, McNair, Pratte, 
McFerron, Barton, Bates, Buckner and others, had received 
exceptionally fine advantages either in college or under re- 
markably eminent men.^^ The most highly educated man in 
the convention, one whom we can correctly style learned, was 
John Rice Jones. This high educational standard of the con- 
vention was naturally reflected in the work of that body. The 
constitution that it framed has throughout not only a clear, 
correct style but also, which is more important, it reveals itself 
as the work of men who were liberal enough to compromise. A 
constitution of this character is usually insured a longer life 
than one framed by a body of illiberal even though powerful 
men. 

Another element of strength in the convention was the 
economic stability of most of its members. All except four 
of the delegates either enjoyed large incomes from their profession 
and business, or were possessed of considerable property, prin- 
cipally in land. Even these four, whom we have excepted, 



" Baber, Chouteau, Clark, Dodge, Hutchings, Ramsay, and Wallace had 
received little schooling or were self-educated. We could not obtain information 
n this line relating to Brown, Burckhartt, Byrd, Cleaver, N. Cook, Lillard, Sul- 
Ivan, and Perry. 



164 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

were not penniless, but were in only fair circumstances com- 
pared to the other delegates. It is interesting to note that 
two of these four delegates were the only school teachers in the 
convention, which perhaps explains their economic situation; 
one was a politician, an even less lucrative ofhce then than now; 
and one was a small business man who soon developed into a 
politician and found more wealth in holding public offtce than 
in selling groceries.^'* Fourteen of the delegates were among 
the wealthiest men in the territory, and two of these, Jones and 
Pratte, probably had few if any equals in this respect.^^ The 
lawyers and surveyors in the Convention had large incomes 
as their services were of a high grade and were well remunerated. 
The business class in the convention was also fortunate in this 
respect, which was due to the large profits that the successful 
trader and merchant made on his furs and wares, and to the 
immense gains that accrued to a progressive mine operator. 
The agricultural class did not, perhaps, enjoy so large a net 
income as either of the three classes named, but in property it 
usually surpassed them. Considering the low average age of 
the delegates, it is surprising that so many were men of means, 
and most of them were also self-made men. The average age 
of these delegates was forty-one years. Only four were sixty 
years old or over — Hammond, who was sixty-three years; 
Henry, eighty-four years; Jones, sixty-one years; and Lillard, 
sixty years. The remaining thirty-seven delegates ranged in 
age between thirty-one and fifty-nine years except five or six 
who were thirty years or younger, — Baber, Bates, Clark, J. 
Cook, Houts (?), and Green. Today it would be almost im- 
possible to elect in any state forty-one of the leading men of 
that commonwealth whose average age is as low and whose 
economic position is as high as were the men who framed Mis- 



•« McFerron and Findlay were teachers; Clark, a politician; and Baber a 
country merchant. Baber later held several public oflQces and for nearly thirty 
years was connected with the state auditor's department. He became wealthy; 
and the story is told that at times he would light his cigar with paper ciu-rency 
to show in what slight regard he held money. 

" The fourteen delegates who were wealthy were Boone, Brown, Byrd, 
Chouteau, N. Cook. Dodge, Hammond, Henry, Lillard, Perry, Ramsay, and 
Rlddick. Dodge had, however, lost much of his wealth, but later recovered it 
in Wisconsin Territory. 



I 



Fathers of the State. 165 

souri's first constitution. The reason for such a difference 
existing is not slow in presenting itself. In the first place, 
never in the history of this nation, not even excepting the case 
of California, has such a wealth of natural resources and fertile 
soil been thrown open to settlement and exploitation as upper 
Louisiana offered the American settler from 1790 to 1820. 
Therefore the fearless, shrewd, and energetic young men amassed 
fortunes in a decade or two. In the second place, the absence 
of specialization permitted men to enter active life earlier. And 
even where special training and study were required as in the 
case of law and engineering, a year or two of application was 
sufficient to enable one to be admitted to active work at the 
bar or in the field. The unlimited opportunities that this rich 
territory offered and the comparative absence of the specialist 
were, we believe, the main reasons for the delegates averaging 
low in age and high in wealth. We would not be understood 
as stating that a wealthy class framed Missouri's first consti- 
tution, for this is not true. The delegates were all men of more 
or less property and some were very wealthy, but they were 
essentially representatives of the people both by virtue of elec- 
tion and even more truly by reason of birth, upbringing and 
industry. 



CHAPTER VI. 

LABORS OF THE CONVENTION. 

On June 12th, 1820, in accordance with the fourth section 
of the Missouri Enabling Act of March 6, 1820, there assembled 
in St. Louis the delegates that had been elected to Missouri's 
first constitutional convention.^ From that date to July 19th, 
a period of thirty-eight days, these constitution framers met 
in daily session, except on the five Sundays intervening and on 
the Fourth of July. The convention thus accomplished its 
purpose and completed its labors in thirty-two days, or in less 
than one-half the time necessary for a regular session of a state 
legislature.^ The assembling place of the convention was in 
the dining room of Bennett's "Mansion House Hotel," ' and the 
thirty-eight delegates that were present on the first day, having 
produced their credentials, were sworn, and took their seats.*' 



> Journal, p. 3. Throughout this and the succeeding chapter foot-note 
references to the Journal of the convention will be indicated by "J." 

• On thirteen days the convention assembled at 9 A. M., on one day at 10 
A. M., and on the last day at 12 A. M. On three days the Journal does not give 
the hour of meeting. The convention also assembled in the afternoon. See 
Mo. Intell., July 1, 1820. 

• This building was erected in 1816 by Gen. Wm. V. Rector, United States 
Surveyor-General for Illinois and Missouri, for his ofiBce and residence, and was 
situated on the north-east corner of Third and Vine streets. In 1819 it was en- 
larged to serve as a hotel for Wm. Bennett, who opened house during the summer 
of that year. From a fine cut of the old Mansion House in Billon, op. cit., p. 
397, it appears to have been a large, three-story brick structure. For many 
years it was used as a hotel and during that time was the scene of many inter- 
esting and noteworthy incidents. Theatrical companies performed in the large 
dining room, and diu-ing the early State period it was the principal ball-room of 
St. Louis. Later it was called the "Denver House" and was sometimes spoken 
of as the "City Hotel." Between 1880 and 1888 it was removed to make way 
for a large business house. Its site would now be at the north-east corner of 
Third and E streets. {Mo. Intell.. June 24, 1820; Billon, op. cit., pp. 106, 397f; 
Darby. Recollections, p. 28; Houck, op. cit.. III. 249, 256. 

*J., p. 3. Dodge appeared on June 13; Flndlay on June 15; and Scott, on 
June 16. (Ibid., pp. 5, 9, 10.) The following were also admitted to a seat within 
the hall of the convention: the governor, secretary, and judges of the superior 
and circuit courts of Missouri Territory (Ibid., p. 12); Mr. Monroe, brother of 
and former private secretary to- the President of the United States; Mr. Strother, 
a former member of Congress (idem.); and Nathaniel B. Tucker, a former judge 
of the circuit court (ibid., p. 23.). The proceedings of the convention appear 

(166) 




"MANSION noiSK" H()'li:i. 

Where the First Constitutional Convention of Missouri met. Courtesy of 
Hon. Cornelius R.)ach. 




■nil': ■•MISSOIRI IKiTh'.l." 
Where the Tirst State I.ejjislalure of Missnurl niei. Ci)urle<y i>f Hon. Cornelius Ri 



Labors of the Convention. 167 

The Journal of the convention does not record any tem- 
porary organization, but other accounts of the proceedings of 
that body reveal the election of Samuel Hammond and Thomas 
F. Riddick, both delegates, as president and secretary pro 
tempore.^ Final organization was then effected by the election 
of a permanent president, a secretary and a door-keeper. David 
Barton was chosen to the former office by a large majority vote; 
William G. Pettus was elected secretary; and George W. Fer- 
guson, door-keeper.® 

Immediately following the permanent organization of the 
convention. Judge Thomas submitted a resolution, that was 
adopted, which required each delegate to take an oath before 
some magistrate of the Territory to support the Constitution 
of the United States, and also an oath to faithfully discharge 
the duties of his office.^ The oaths having been administered 
by the Hon. Silas Bent, a judge of the superior court, a resolu- 
tion was submitted by John D. Cook, of Ste. Genevieve, which 
stated that it was then expedient to form a constitution and 
state government for the people of Missouri Territory within 
the boundaries set forth in the enabling act of Congress.' This 
very important resolution was unanimously adopted by the 
convention. Considering the strong frontier sentiment that 
up to May, 1820, had favored a new election and a fairer ap- 
portionment of delegates, this vote is remarkable. The Boone's 
Lick people had been protesting for months against the small 
number of representatives apportioned their and the Salt 
River districts, and they had persistently advocated a new 
election of delegates and a new convention based on a more 



to have been of a semi-secret nature ; the public was excluded from the sessions 
but some of the delegates kept their constituents informed of the general business 
transacted. 

'Jackson Herald, June 24, 1820; Scharf, op. cit., I. 564f. 

• J., pp. 3f. The voting was by ballot and resulted as follows: for president — 
David Barton, 28 votes, Richard S. Thomas. 6, John Rice Jones, 3; for secretary — 
William G. Pettus, 21 votes, Archibald Gamble, 12, Thompson Douglass, 3, 
Joseph V. Gamier, 2; and for door-keeper — George W. Ferguson, 35 votes, Ed- 
ward Horrocks, 2. None of the candidates for secretary or door-keeper was 
a delegate. 

' Ibid., p. 4. Cf. Jameson, Const. Convs., pp. 280ff. This was the first 
resolution recorded in the Journal and was submitted on June 12th. 

'Ibid., p. 4. 



168 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

just basis of representation.' It speaks well for the wisdom 
and honor of these western and northern men that, although 
they could have opposed this measure with much justice on 
their side, they choose to yield their cause in behalf of the com- 
mon welfare of the people.^" 

Having decided to form a constitution, the convention at 
once began its labors. This work was accomplished by com- 
mittees, which reported to the convention, and divides itself 
into legislative and administrative acts. The former activity 
is the more important, but the latter is also significant and in- 
teresting. We shall first consider the administrative and rou- 
tine labors of the convention. 

On the first day of the convention a committee was ap- 
pointed to draft rules for the government of that body.^^ On 
the following day this committee submitted a short report, 
consisting of twenty-one sections and containing about nine 
hundred words, which was divided into four parts, "The Duties 
Of The President," "Of Decorum In Debate," "Duties Of 
The Secretary," and "Duties Of The Door-Keeper." This 
report was adopted by the convention without debate or op- 
position. ^^ Brevity, courtesy and common sense, are its dis- 
tinguishing features. ^^ The President of the convention was 



> Cf. supra, chapter II; Mo. Intell., June 24. 1820. 

'"The action of the Missouri convention on this point presents a striking 
contrast to that of the Louisiana constitutional convention of 1811. The latter 
met on November 4, 1811, and after electing a temporary president, being unable 
to effect a permanent organization, adjourned to the 18th instant. On re- 
assembling and after the election of permanent officers, the great question of 
"State or no State?" commanded the attention of all the delegates. Some favored 
a state, others opposed it. One thought that the people were not instructed in 
the principles of freedom. Some of the newspaper writers in that Territory 
declared that the doctrines of liberty and equality were "heresy" and "theoretical 
stuff," and that property should be the basis for granting the right of suffrage. 
On taking the vote on this question, thirty-flve delegates favored a State, seven 
opposed it. (Fortier, Address, in Pub. of La. Hist. Soc, VI. 40f. 

"J., p. 4. Thomas. Emmons, Jones, Cook of Madison and Riddick com- 
posed this committee. Two of these were lawyers; two, business men; and one, 
a landowner, was a brother of a lawyer. 

»• Ibid., pp. 5ff. Fifty copies were ordered printed. 

" A comparison of these rules with those governing the United States House 
of Representatives at that time shows that the former are simply an epitome 
of those essential features of the latter that are applicable to a convention. In 
many sections the language of the two are identical except that in the place of 
the words "Hoxise," "Speaker" and "Clerk." which appear in the former, the 



Labors of the Convention. 169 

given the great power of appointing all committees, and at no 
time during the session of that body was this rule changed. 
As the presiding officer, Barton seems to have given satisfaction 
to all the delegates; on the last day of the convention a resolu- 
tion was unanimously adopted tendering him the thanks of 
the members of that body for the able and faithful discharge 
of his duty as president. A similar resolution of thanks was 
at the same time passed regarding the work of Pettus for the 
faithful and correct manner in which he had served as secretary." 
A resolution was then adopted directing that the secretary 
make up the Journal of the convention under the direction of 
the president.^* This resolution brings to our attention what 
we regard as one of the most serious criticisms that can be 
urged against the convention and its officers. We advance 
this criticism not only for the sake of historical accuracy but, 
we believe, "The world's memory must be kept alive or we 
shall never see an end of its old mistakes." ^^ 

The minutes recorded of the proceedings of a legislative 
body, and especially of a constitutional convention, can never 
be too detailed. The very interpretation of a phrase or a 
clause in a constitution frequently involves a painstaking study 
of those debates that were held over it by its framers. Not 
only to the historian, the lawyer, the judge, and to all posterity, 
is such a detailed account important, but it is equally valuable 
in enabling contemporaries and the people at large to pass 
unbiased judgment on the acts of those men whom they have 
elected to so important a trust. The proceedings of all de- 



words "Convention," "President" and "Secretary," are respectively substituted 
in the latter. Cf. Hinds, Rules of the House of Rep. 61sl Cong., pp. 303-474. 
(Govt. Prtg. Office, Washington, 1910.) 

>'J., p. 48. It is reported that Pettus worked all night of the 18th of July, 
copying on parchment the enrolled constitution. From the minutes of the 
Journal, however, it seems that Pettus had at least two nights and one day to 
do this work. (Cf. J., p. 46f.) It is probable that other duties prevented him 
from accomplishing this until the last minute. Findlay, chairman of the enroll- 
ment committee, in reporting to the convention the result of his examination of 
Pettus' work, said that never in his long experience as a printer had he seen such 
beautiful and accurate copying, that there was not an interlineation or mispelled 
word, and that not a "t" was uncrossed or an "i" undotted, throughout the 
manu.script. (Scharf, op. cit., I. 563f; Houck, op. cit.. III. 249f. M. 5.) 

"J., p. 48. 

'• Reported from speech of President Woodrow Wilson. 



170 Missouri Struggle fon Statehood 



liberative bodies and, wherever politic, of administrative 
boards, should be recorded in the clearest and most minute 
detail. The cost of printing and clerk hire is too childish an 
objection to deserve consideration. 

Brevity, condensation and omission of detail, is in itself 
one of the most essential characteristics of a strong, enduring 
and well-balanced constitution; this quality is, on the other 
hand, the most vital of all defects in any journal that purports 
to record the complete history of how a constitution was framed. 
The Missouri constitution of 1820 is commendable in covering 
only eighteen and a half printed octavo pages; the journal of 
the Missouri constitutional convention of 1820 is ridiculously 
defective in being a pamphlet of forty-eight printed pages, of 
which only thirty-four contain information on the constitution. ^^ 
From an analysis of the newspaper reports of this convention 
we are well within the bounds of moderation in stating that 
the four contests in that body over the questions of salaries for 
state officers, of the basis of representation in the state senate, 
of the location of the permanent seat of the state government, 
and of the state bank, alone, could not have been fully described 
in a journal of less than three hundred pages. Fundamental 
as is this defect of brevity in the record that was kept of Mis- 
souri's first constitutional convention, the Journal would still 
be acceptable if it possessed the merits of clearness and ac- 
curacy. But a hasty examination shows it is lacking in the 
former quality, and a careful study compromises it in the 
latter.18 

The JournaVs account of the convention's printing con- 
tracts is significantly illustrative of these defects, and, as those 
contracts were purely administrative acts, a discussion of 
them is appropriate here. The convention's printing was of 



" The St. Louis edition of 1820 of the constitution is a small size pamphlet, 
three and a half by five and three-fourths inches, and contains forty pages, of 
which thirty are devoted to the constitution; the Washington edition, printed 
the same year, is a full size octavo pamphlet and contains twenty-five pages, of 
which eighteen and a half are devoted to the constitution. 

'•Our criticism of brevity and obscurity is not confined to the Journal of 
this convention; it is applicable to the Journal of the Illinois constitutional con- 
vention of 1818. (C/. same as reprinted in the Journal of the III. State Hist. 
Soc, VI. No. 3.) 



Labors of the Convention. 171 

two kinds, miscellaneous job work and the printing of the 
constitution and journal. All bids were to be made to a 
committee, composed of Greene, Rector and Boone; final 
decision on same was; retained by the convention.^® This 
committee first considered bids for the job work, and having 
requested and received one from Henry and Company of St. 
Louis recommended the acceptance of that firm's offer. The 
convention accordingly gave the contract to Henry and Com- 
pany .^^ This far the Journal is clear and perhaps accurate, 
although there were probably some discussion and an aye and 
and nay vote taken on this matter, both of which the Journal 
fails to record. A criticism does, however, plainly rest against 
the printing committee in not having also asked for a bid from 
the rival printing firm in St. Louis, or if it did this, in not having 
presented two bids — for certainly the old, established firm of 
Joseph Charless* could and would have competed with that of 
Henry and Benton's.'^^ 

On the day following the letting of the job work, the con- 
vention, after much discussion, resolved by a very close division 
vote to have printed twelve hundred copies of the constitution 
and of the journal. This resolution was bitterly contested and 
thoroughly aroused the convention, but the Journal is sin- 
gularly silent on this phase of the affair .22 Two days later, on 
Saturday, June 17, according to the Journal, the printing 
committee submitted to the convention propositions of Henry 
and Company for printing twelve hundred copies of the con- 
stitution and of the journal, and also submitted a resolution 
accepting these propositions. The Journal then briefly states 



"J., p. 5. 

•« Ibid., pp. 7f. 

>' Henry and Co. printed the St. Louis Enquirer and was controlled by Isaac 
N. Henry and Thomas H. Benton. Joseph Charless, editor and owner of the 
Missouri Gazette, was hated by many of the delegates and especially by Green 
and other active politicians of Missouri. 

" See Journal, p. 9, for its account of the proceedings on June 15th. Our 
account is taken from a letter of the St. Louis correspondent of the Missouri 
Intelligencer. (Mo. Intell., June 24, 1820.) Green, Cook of Ste. Genevieve, and 
Findlay favored the resolution; Thomas wanted only 300 copies printed: and 
Heath opposed the resolution. The writer says that some excitement, irregular 
discussion, and long speeches followed the introduction of the resolution. Two 
important votes were taken and each showed 20 ayes and 18 nays. 



172 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

that, after a motion to table this resolution had been negatived, 
the resolution itself was adopted.^^ Green, chairman of the 
printing committee, in a letter "To The Voters Of Howard 
County" dated two months later, said that his committee had 
also submitted the propositions to Charless for printing, and 
that the convention had almost unanimously accepted those 
of Henry and Company .^^ Either the Journal is inaccurate 
or Green is mistaken ; we are inclined to think that both trimmed. 
On the following Monday, June 19, according to the Journal, 
Charless submitted proposals for printing the constitution and 
the journal, but on motion of Findlay these were ordered to be 
laid on the table.^^ Charless* bids were just one-fifth those of 
Henry and Company; this interesting bit of information is not, 
however, given in the Journal; we obtained it from the files of 
the Missouri Gazette, August 2 and 9, and of the Missouri In- 
telligencer, July 1 and August 19.^® To maintain that the 



>» Journal, p. 10. Ramsay made the motion to table the resolution. 

»« Afo. IntelL. August 19, 1820. 

"J., p. 11. 

•• The bid of Henry and Company for printing twelve hundred copies of the 
constitution was $100.00; that of Charless, $20.00. The cost of printing twelve 
hundred copies of the journal was to be done at the same rate, in proportion to 
the extent of the work. The St. Louis correspondent of the Mo. InteU., July 1. 
1820, states that Charless' bid was presented June 19, and that it was placed 
low, at 1/5 a fair price, in order to raise "a false clamour among the people." 
He also states that the printing contract had been let on June 17, and that Charless, 
knowing this, sought to embaress the convention without running any risk of 
being himself embarressed. Charless replied to this correspondent in two edito- 
rials which appeared in the Mo. Gazette, Aug. 2 and 9, 1820. He stated that the 
printing committee had never requested bids from him; that he had not known 
of the appointment of this committee until after it had presented the proposals 
of Henry and Co.; that when his proposals were handed to the committee by 
Boone, who had received them from some member. Green was displeased and wished 
to know who had informed old Charless; that at that time the contract had not 
yet been made and was still under discussion; that notwithstanding the fact that 
his bid was only one-flfth that of Henry and Co., the contract was awarded the 
latter, on the recommendation of the committee; and that he had his bid again 
presented to the convention by a member, but it was tabled. Charless also 
explained how he could afford to print twelve hundred copies of the constitution 
for $20.00 and still make a profit ; all the newspapers would print the constitution, 
hence no new labor of composition would be required to print it for the convention; 
the only extra expense in printing twelve hundred copies would be the following — 
paper, $6.25, press work, $4.00, folding, stitching, covering, and coloring, one 
day for a boy, $1.50, and colored paper for covering, $1.25 — all of which would 
amount to $13.00, thus leaving a profit of $7.00 on his $20.00 bid. Charless 
further accused Green and the convention of giving Henry and Co. at least $1,500 
for all the printing, which he, Charless, would gladly have done for $300.00. He 



Labors of the Convention. 173 

matter is unimportant and did not warrant recording, is to lay 
the Journal open to the severe criticism of having covered one 
and one-half pages of its scanty forty-eight pages with extraneous 
minutes on the printing by Henry and Company. We cannot, 
however, see how the $20.00 bid of Charless was in any respect 
less important than the $100.00 bid of Henry and Company." 



concluded his arraignment with these biting words: "It is part of the question 
of high salaries — no one shall do any thing for the public except he will take three 
times as much as he ought — No one shall serve the public unless he plucks the goose 
as much as possible." 

Green in his race for representative from Howard county in 1820, was at- 
tacked by his enemies for this little piece of politics of his at St. Louis, and he 
must have feared the eflfect of the charges. For on August 19th, there appears 
in the Mo. Intell. a letter of his addressed "To The Voters Of Howard County," 
which attempts to reply to the statements of Charless and others. A hasty 
examination of this letter clears both Green and the Convention of all criticisms 
regarding the convention's printing and further places Charless in the hole for 
misstatements and for playing low politics: a careful analysis of this epistle, a 
comparison with it of the Journal, of the editorials of Charless, and of the writings 
of the St. Louis correspondent of the Mo. Intell., and an appreciation of the fact 
that it was an attempt to answer certain direct and specific charges, convict 
Green, some members of the convention, and the Journal of wilful and conscious 
irregularities in this matter. The voters of Howard county also possibly shared 
this latter conclusion as Green was very decisively defeated at the August election. 

>' The convention later decided that the constitution be translated into the 
French language, and that 300 copies thereof be distributed for the use of the 
French inhabitants. Pratte, Chouteau, and Riddick were appointed to super- 
vise this work. (Journal, p. 46.) 

It was first decided to dispose of the 1,200 printed copies of the constitution 
that were in English as follows: 380 copies were to be deposited in the archives 
of the state, subject to the future disposition of the legislature; and 20 copies 
were to be given to each delegate, for the use of his constituents. (Mo. Intell., 
June 24, 1820.) This was changed by a resolution, introduced by Bates, which 
provided that the President of the United States, the respective heads of the 
departments of the Federal Government, the chief executive of each state and 
territory, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the 
Senate of Congress, each receive one copy of the constitution, that 100 copies of 
the constitution and the journal be deposited in the office of the Secretary of 
State of Missouri, and that the remaining copies of both be distributed among 
the delegates. (Journal, p. 47.) 

We have seen only one copy of the original edition of the constitution printed 
in St. Louis, and one copy that was printed in Washington (1820). These are 
both in the State Hist. Soc. of Mo. We have never seen an original of the Journal 
and in our work used a photo-facsimile reprint made in 1905 by the Statute Law 
Book Company, Washington, D. C. 

The final superintendence of the printing of the constitution was placed In 
the hands of Findlay. (Journal, p. 47f.) On the last page of the St. Louis 
edition of the constitution is found the certification of J. S. Findlay, under date 
of St. Louis, Aug. 3, 1820, declaring that the constitution and "Ordinance" as 
printed agreed with the original roll. On the last page of the Washington edition 
is found a similar certification by David Barton, under date of St. Louis, September 
27, 1820. 



174 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

The Journal's record of the printing contracts is singular, 
but its account of the resolution that provided for the pay of 
the members and officers of the convention, is unique. The 
latter subject, although not considered until late in the session, 
secured the attention of the delegates on seven days.^^ The 
Journal contains a copy of the original resolution, presented 
by Ramsay, on this matter; gives the names of the members of 
the committee appointed to report on this resolution ; and states 
that the committee submitted this resolution as an ordinance, 
thus necessitating honoring it with the signatures of the president 
and secretary of the convention. The Journal further informs 
us that the ordinance after two readings was committed to the 
committee of the whole, was then reported with amendments to 
the convention, was agreed to and ordered to be engrossed for 
a third reading, was again agreed to by a division vote, — the 
individual ayes and nays being given — , was reported on favor- 
ably by the committee on enrollments, and was finally signed 
by Barton and Pettus. We would logically expect that since 
so much pains was taken to relate the complete story of this 
simple administrative act, the Journal would inform us what 
its core was, i. e., what pay the president, the secretary, the 
doorkeeper, and the delegates received per diem for their services 
and what mileage was allowed them. Or, if the Journal did 
not, then surely this ordinance, which was raised by the con- 
vention to the dignity and authority of a fundamental law, 
would have found a place at the end of the pamphlet that 
contains the constitution, the ordinance of acceptance of the 
conditions imposed by Congress, and the certification of Findlay 
that these two documents had been correctly printed. But 
neither pamphlet contains the slightest hint of the compensa- 
tion received by the officers and members of this convention. 
We do not, therefore, conclude that the compensation ordinance 
necessarily allowed exorbitant per diem salaries and mileage; 
we do, however, criticise the Journal, i. e., Pettus and his director, 
Barton, for recording this ordinance so minutely and finally 
letting the people of Missouri hold the bag. 



"Journal, pp. 30f.. 33, 38, 42ff., 47f. 



Labors of the Convention. 175 

This ordinance also provided for other expenses of the con- 
vention.2^ It is impossible to ascertain what all these other 
expenditures were, but it is certain that they included printing 
bills, contingent expenses of the secretary, and furniture and 
rent accounts. We estimate that this ordinance carried an 
appropriation of about $8,800.00.^° This amount represents 
practically the total cost to the people of Missouri of their 
first constitutional convention .^^ As no criticism of this ex- 
pense is met with in the newspapers of that day, we may con- 
clude that the inhabitants of the new State were willing to pay 
so low a bill. Compared with the cost of even the first session 
of the first General Assembly of Missouri, it was a very small 
expenditure. In fact Missourians paid about three times as 
much for their first volume of session laws as they did for their 
first constitution .^2 



"Ibid., p. 48. 

«• The compensation allowed the delegates was probably no higher than 
that given to the members of the first state General Assembly of Missouri at 
its first session, since both the convention and that legislature had unlimited 
legal power over this subject. (C/. Mo. Const., 1820, Schedule, sec. 6. The 
members of the Missouri constitutional convention of 1845 and 1875 received 
the same compensation as was allowed members of the legislature. See Laws 
of Mo., 12th G. A., 1st sess., pp. 26f., act of Feb. 27, 1843; act of March 25, 1874, 
sec. 4, in Const, of Mo. 1865, compiled by McGrath, 1875, pp. 48ff., bound in 
"Missouri Constitutions 1845-1909.") The latter body allowed each of its two 
presiding ofiicers and of its two clerks five dollars a day, and each member of 
both houses four dollars a day and mileage at the rate of three dollars for every 
twenty-five miles in coming to and returning from the session. It consisted of 
fourteen senators and forty-three representatives, a total of fifty-seven members, 
was in working session about two and a fourth times as long as the convention, 
and appropriated twenty-five thousand dollars for salaries and mileage of its 
members and twelve hundred dollars for printing. If the convention allowed 
Its members a similar per diem salary and the same rate of mileage, then these 
two items in the convention's budget amounted to approximately $8,000.00. 
The printing bill of the convention was, we believe, about $500.00. (C/., the 
Journal, pp. 8, 10 and the letter of Green in the Mo. Intell., August 19, 1820. 
We cannot accept Charless' statement that the total printing bill would be about 
$1,500.00; according to contract. It could not have been over $500.00.) The ex- 
pense for furniture was possibly $100.00, and the secretary's contingent bill was 
$26.25 (Scharf. op. cit., I. 536). The rent of the dining hall and two rooms in 
Bennett's Hotel was $30.00 a week or about $165.00 for the thirty-eight days. 
(Journal, pp. 4f. The two rooms were probably used by the convention as com- 
mittee rooms.) This makes a total expense of $8,791.25, which, we believe, is 
a close approximation. 

" It does not, however, include the expense incident to the election of the 
delegates. 

"Laws of Mo. 1820, 1st G. A.. 1st sess.. chap. 17. pp. 34f.; chap. 45, pp. 82f. 

In pursuing this study of Missouri's first constitutional convention and while 
examining to some extent the other constitutional conventions and constitutions 



176 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

This concludes our consideration of the administrative 
and miscellaneous acts of the convention. The few that have 
not been discussed are either of slight interest and importance, 
or their purpose is not clear.^^ 

We shall now consider the legislative work of the con- 
vention. This work consisted of drafting and adopting two 
organic laws — an ordinance accepting the five propositions 
and the two provisions that were set forth in the sixth section 
of Missouri's Enabling Act, and a constitution, which governed 
the people of this state for nearly forty-five years. Both 
became binding on the people of Missouri through the mandate 
of the convention; neither was ever submitted to a popular 
vote. Contrary to current opinion, however, and even to the 
statements of some scholars, there is, we believe, no obvious 
naturalness or necessary conformity to the spirit of the times 



of this and other states, we have frequently been confronted with questions that 
involved comparisons of constitutional law and ordinary or session law. and of 
constitutional conventions and ordinary legislative bodies. First necessity and 
finally interest have directed our attention to this phase of our subject, and we 
hope to be pardoned for the following extraneous remarks : Are constitutions more 
easily framed than ordinary laws? If so, is this owing to the abler men in con- 
stitutional conventions; to the absence of veto and constitutional limitations, 
except those in the United States constitution; to the single house plan of organ- 
ization; or to the smaller membership? If not, why does it take less time to draft 
constitutions than session laws, for it is a fact that Missouri's first constitutional 
convention was in session only thirty-eight days of which only thirty-two were 
working days; that this State's second convention, 1845-1846. met fifty-eight days, 
of which not more than forty-eight were working days; and that the last con- 
vention, 1875, met eighty-nine days, of which only seventy-six were working 
days? Is not this celerity in drafting constitutions due to the same factors that 
serve to explain the simplicity and ease of framing constitutions? 

«« On Jime 19, McFerron submitted a resolution providing for the appoint- 
ment of a committee to draft a memorial to Congress in behalf of certain persons 
claiming preemption rights. This was supported by Thomas and Buckner; 
and opposed by Bates and Evans on the ground that it did not fall within the powers 
and duties of the convention. It was negatived. (Journal, p. 11; Mo. Intell., 
July 1. 1820.) 

On June 27, Jones, Talbot and Chouteau, were appointed on a committee 
to obtain from the Territorial Auditor a statement of the taxes assessed on and 
paid by the counties of Missouri Territory into the Territorial Treasury for 1817, 
1818, and 1819. {Journal, p. 14.) This committee reported on July 1. but it is 
not known what this report contained. {Ibid., p. 19.) The purpose of the con- 
vention was undoubtedly to obtain a knowledge of the state's revenue in order, 
thereby, to estimate accordingly the salaries of the new state oflBcials. 

On July 5, a committee was appointed, composed of Jones, Rector and 
Wallace, to ascertain the quantity of Missouri land sold by the United States. 
This committee reported on the 8th instant, but Its report is not given. {Ibid., 
pp. 25, 29.) 



Labors oj the Convention. 177 

in the refusal of Missouri's first constitutional convention to 
submit the fruits of its labors to the people. 

Of the twenty-four state constitutions in force in 1820, 
six had been submitted, and one of these was in the south.^* 
From 1775 to 1820 inclusive, there had assembled forty-two 
conventions, state and national, that had either framed or 
amended constitutions. Of this forty-two conventions, fifteen 
had submitted their work to the people or to their representa- 
tives, twenty-seven had not. If the purely revolutionary 
bodies of 1775 and 1776 are eliminated, the number of sub- 
mitting conventions remains fifteen but the number of non- 
submitting conventions is reduced to seventeen.^^ Moreover, 
of all the constitutions and constitutional revisions made be- 
tween 1820 and 1830 inclusive, Missouri's was the only one that 
was not submitted to the people. ^^ From these generalizations 
alone, it seems logical to conclude that the principle of sub- 
mitting constitutions to the people or their representatives, 
was firmly established in the United States from the very in- 
ception of our government. Although down to 1820 the non- 
submitting convention was slightly the stronger of the two in 
the total number of precedents, not one of these non-submitting 
conventions was as influential, as an historical example, as the 
submitting convention of 1787 that framed the Federal Con- 
stitution. Moreover, during the decade from 1820 to 1830, the 
relation of the number of submitting conventions to the number 
of non-submitting ones, was as five to one. Why, then, did 
the Missouri convention of 1820 follow the non-submitting 



"Conn. (1818); Me. (1819); Mass. (1780); Miss. (1817); N. H. (1791); and 
Vt. (1792, 1820). See Jameson, Const. Convs., pp. 496flf., and Appendix B, pp. 
643fl. 

"These submitting conventions were: Continental Congress (1775-81); 
Federal Convention (1787); Ga. (1788); Me. (1819); Mass. (1778, 1779, 1780, 
lcS20); Miss. (1817); N. H. (1778, 1781, 1791); Vt. (1785, 1792, 1820). 

The non-submitting conventions were: Ala. (1819); Del. (1792); Del., 
Ga., Md., N. J., N. Y., N. C, Pa., and Va. (1776); Ga. (1795, 1798); lU. (1818); 
Ind. (1816); Ky. (1792. 1799); La. (1811); Mo. (1820); N. H. (1775); N. Y. (1801); 
O. (1802); Pa. (1789); S. C. (1775, 1778, 1790); Tenn. (1796); Vt. (1777). 

The failure of the revolutionary conventions of 1775 and 1776 to submit 
their labors to a popular vote, was probably due to the lack of time and to a fear 
of a large adverse vote from the Tories in many of the colonies. 

"Mo. (1820); Mass. (1820); N. Y. (1821); R. I. (1824); Va. (1829); Vt. 
(1820, 1827). Ibid. 

M S— 12 



178 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

class, if the principal of submission had been so firmly estab- 
lished in our political system? We believe that there was a 
number of influences operating in Missouri against submission: 
there was no demand on the part of the people for such a refer- 
endum or adoption; the people of Missouri Territory wanted an 
immediate state government without further delay; the dele- 
gates possessed the confidence of their constituents; the con- 
stitution was generally acceptable; submitting conventions 
were then the exception in the south; and finally, the convention 
itself was undoubtedly opposed to such a course. Again it is 
probable that had the constitution and the ordinance of ac- 
ceptance been submitted to a popular vote, both would have 
been adopted by overwhelming majorities. The former would 
have had little opposition: the latter by its very nature would 
have received the support of all. It may not be altogether 
superfluous to add that the Enabling Act by not requiring the 
submission of these two laws to the people and by not even 
implying such submission, was possibly an influence in itself 
against such a course. 

The ordinance of acceptance is based almost wholly on the 
sixth section of the Missouri enabling act of March 6, 1820. 
As this act has been considered,^^ we will not again analyze it. 
It will be recalled that section six of this act set forth five 
propositions or five proposed United States donations to the 
new State, for the free acceptance or rejection by the convention. 
If accepted, these propositions were to be binding upon the 
national government, but they were conditioned upon two 
provisos: the convention was to provide by an ordinance, 
irrevocable without the consent of the United States, (1) that 
all public lands sold in Missouri by the United States after 
January 1, 1821, were to be free for five years after date of sale 
from all state, county and township taxes; and (2) that bounty 
lands, granted for military services during the war of 1812, 
were to be similarly exempt from taxes for three years from 
date of the patents providing these lands were held by the 
patentees or by their heirs. 



•' See supra, chap. II. For a copy of the ordinance, see Appendix IV. 



Labors of the Convention, 179 

On the third day of the session of the convention, a com- 
mittee was appointed to consider the expediency of accepting 
or rejecting these five propositions and two provisos.'^ Two 
days later, this committee made its report, which was favorable 
towards accepting the propositions and provisos of Congress, 
and submitted the draft of an ordinance relating to these sub- 
jects. Both the report and the ordinance were unanimously 
accepted by the convention, and on June 17th the ordinance, 
after a second reading, was committed to a committee of the 
whole house.^^ While before this committee the ordinance 
received considerable attention.'*" Scott at once introduced a 
substitute ordinance, in which were recited all the conditions 
contained in the act of Congress and declaring the assent of the 
convention thereto. This substitute included everything that 
was contained in the original ordinance, i. e., those provisions 
that composed the sixth section of the Enabling Act, and also 
enumerated and assented to those conditions that were set 
forth in the second and the fourth sections of the act of Con- 
gress. Scott's contention was that this ordinance should 
assent not only to the five propositions and to the two con- 
ditions in the sixth section but also to those conditions in the 
second and fourth sections. Heath, chairman of the committee 
that framed the original ordinance, favored the substitute so 
far as it was based on the sixth section, but opposed those 
clauses that were founded on the conditions in the second and 
fourth sections of the enabling act. Heath objected to including 
in the ordinance anything relating to the free and common 
navigation of rivers or to the equal taxation of the lands of 
non-residents and residents. Buckner also took this position, 
and declared that the point of taxation was one which involved 
Missouri's sovereignty and over which Congress had no power 
to dictate. In a very able speech Scott defended the two 



** Journal, pp. 7f. Heath, Ray and Buckner were appointed on this com- 
mittee. 

•• Ibid., pp. 9flf. The ordinance reported by this committee Is practically 
the same as that part of the one finally adopted which begins with the words, 
"Now, this convention, for and in behalf of the people" etc., and which closes 
with the words "from and after the date of the patents respectively." 

** Mo. Jntell., Jiily 1, 1820. The ordinance was discussed all Monday after- 
noon, June 19tb. 



180 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

points objected to by Heath and Buckner. He appealed to 
the convention's sense of justice on the taxation proviso, de- 
fending this proviso with many precedents drawn from Ameri- 
can state history, and urged its inclusion in the ordinance from 
the standpoint of poHcy. Bates, in a speech of considerable 
length, opposed the additional provisos in Scott's substitute 
and especially the one that related to taxation. He said that 
he regarded Scott's historical examples as being inapplicable 
in this case, that he would never consent to purchase Missouri's 
admission into the Union at the price of her relinquishing so 
important an attribute of state sovereignty, and that he not 
only favored placing this power in the hands of the Missouri 
legislature but thought that it might be well for that body to 
actually impose a higher tax on non-resident than on resident 
land-holders. Bates concluded by offering the following amend- 
ment to the first section of the substitute, which section, we 
believe, contained the provisos relating to the free and common 
navigation of Missouri rivers :^^ "provided that Congress be 
requested so to modify the third proposition as to allow the 
whole of the sum of five per cent to be appropriated within the 
state to the construction of roads and canals, and promotion 
of education, under the direction of the legislature thereof." 
This amendment having been agreed to, the committee of the 
whole took up the consideration of the second section of the 
substitute ordinance. Green delivered two speeches in an 
attempt to slightly amend this section, which related to the 
equal taxation of non-resident and resident land-holders. 
Emmons, Scott, Cook of Ste. Genevieve, and Barton opposed 
and finally defeated Green's amendment. Barton and Thomas 
then opposed the entire section and succeeded in having it struck 
out. The substitute ordinance as amended by Bates was re- 
ported to the convention, concurred in, and ordered to be en- 
grossed. On July 14th the convention agreed to the engrossed 
ordinance on its third reading,*^ and three days later, after an 
attempt, made by McFerron, to defeat it had failed, it was 



" It is not clear what was the first section of Scott's substitute. 
" Journal, p. 44. 



Labors of the Convention. 181 

again carried in the affirmative.^^ After having been correctly 
enrolled, the final draft of the ordinance was signed by Barton 
and Pettus on the last day of the session of the convention/* 

We have treated this subject at greater length than is 
customary; but to us such treatment appears clearly war- 
ranted. This ordinance is one of the few organic laws that have 
applied to Missouri; and further, it is today the second oldest 
fundamental law that is in force in this state. The acts of 
Congress passed between 1804 and 1820 that applied to the 
government of upper Louisiana and Missouri Territory, were 
superceded by the Missouri constitution of 1820; the latter by 
the constitution of 1865; and this in turn by the present con- 
stitution of 1875. But, the ordinance of July 19, 1820, passed 
by the convention of that date, was "irrevocable except on the 
consent of Congress." Finally, this ordinance although not a 
requisite for the admission of Missouri was necessary if that 
state expected to receive national land grants and money aid 
for internal improvements, education and a seat of government. 

Its authors in the convention were Heath, Scott, and Bates. 
Its passage in the convention reveals several interesting side 
lights on that body. The delegates favored the strictest and 
most limited interpretation of those conditions or provisos im- 
posed on Missouri by Congress that were to be included in the 
ordinance; and, on the contrary, though quite naturally, they 
requested Congress to broaden the scope of her donations. 
The convention refused to declare by an irrevocable law that 
Missouri would never impose a higher tax on non-resident 
land-holders than on resident land-holders,^ but at the same 
time that body was practically a unit in placing in that ordinance 
a plea for Congress to grant more money for roads and canals 
in Missouri. We do not believe that the convention willfully 



" Ibid., p. 46. 

" Ibid., p. 46fl. 

" This prohibition and the proviso relating to navigable rivers were placed 
on the general assembly of Missouri in Article X of the constitution of 1820. 
That article, however, contained no clause which exempted it from being subject 
to amendment the same as the other provision of the constitution; nor is such a 
proviso clause contained in that article which provided the manner of amending 
the constitution. 



182 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

tried to antagonize Congress on the taxation question, it seems 
to us that the proviso of Congress on this point was inherently 
an unpopular one to the delegates and their constituents. The 
non-resident holder of Missouri land escaped at least one 
arduous, dangerous, and not inexpensive duty: He was free 
from militia service in this state. Furthermore, he was as a 
rule not only an unprogressive factor in the state but frequently 
a serious drawback to its development. The curse of land 
speculation was a serious problem in those pioneer days. The 
messages of the first governor of Wisconsin Territory are full 
of this subject.^^ This mania of legalized gambling had pos- 
sessed Missouri from the very inception of American rule. 
Disastrous as were its evils when confined to resident land- 
holders, these evils never aroused that wave of popular disfavor 
and positive hatred that was directed against the absentee 
landlords. The former at least shared the burdens and dangers 
of a frontier life; the latter were regarded, justly or unjustly, 
as profitting by the pioneers' industry without contributing 
anything to the development of the state. Even such a con- 
servative and temperate minded man as Bates apparently 
thought that equal taxation under such circumstances was 
unjust. With Bates stood Barton, Heath, Buckner, and 
Thomas, and the convention itself, while only two. Green and 
Scott, spoke in favor of this proviso. The least that the con- 
vention could do and still comply with the demands of Con- 
gress, was exactly what it did: The taxation and navigation 
provisos were inserted in the constitution, but nowhere in that 
document were these provisos or any other provisos exempt 
from the ordinary process of amendment. 

In framing the constitution the committee method was 
adopted by the convention. The advantages of this method 
over the assembly method are so well known that a detailed 
exposition of it is hardly necessary. The former manner of 
working is almost imperative in any large deliberative body 
and lends itself very conveniently to the needs and wishes of 
a small assembly. By a division of labors and by a specializa- 
tion of work the committee system enables such a body to 



«• See Shambaugh, Messages of the Governors of Iowa, I. 



I 



Labors of the Convention. 183 

progress with greater dispatch, to handle more questions 
within a Hmited time, and to perform a higher quaUty of work. 
This system does not necessarily carry with it the elimination 
of deliberation on the part of the body that appoints or adopts 
it; the opposite is generally the rule. The assembly plan of 
procedure does eliminate the committee, but the committee 
plan is essentially a complement to, and not an absorber of, 
the assembly. 

The first resolution submitted to the convention on this 
subject was proposed by Bates. He favored the appointment 
of a single committee to draft a constitution.*^ The convention 
refused, however, to adopt this measure.*^ On the same day, 
June 13th, a resolution was proposed by Thomas, and carried, 
that four committees, each consisting of three members, be 
appointed by the president of the convention to do the following 
work: one committee was to draft the legislative department, 
on it were appointed Jones, Emmons and Clark; one, the ex- 
ecutive, composed of Rector, Cook of Madison and Evans; one 
the judiciary, composed of Thomas, Cook of Ste. Genevieve 
and Bates; and one, the bill of rights and other parts not before 
mentioned, composed of Ramsay, Hammond and Green .^^ We 
do not hesitate to say that, including Barton, who undoubtedly 
exercised a great influence over the members of all the com- 
mittees by virtue of both his ability and his power of appoint- 
ment, most of the influential men of the convention were placed 



" Journal, p. 5. 

'» Bates left blank the number of committee places. There are, we believe, 
onlj- two advantages in Bates' plan over the assembly plan: the constitution if 
framed by one committee would probably have been more unified in both subject 
matter and style, and would probably have been framed in less time. There is 
also this possible item in its favor, that if the committee was composed of the 
ablest men of the convention, the constitution so framed might have been a 
stronger document. We do not, however, regard this last as a necessary con- 
clusion even if the committee had been composed of only one member and he, a 
Bates, a Barton, a Benton, or a Jones. On the other hand. Bates' plan carries 
with it some definite objections: if the committee is small, too few men are in- 
vested with too much power, and, fiu-thor, it cannot be representative of the state 
at large in those great fields of legislation set forth in a constitution; if the com- 
mittee is large, then it either loses that celerity of action and power of specializa- 
tion which are the foundations of the committee system, or it divides itself into 
several sub-committees. The convention was doubtless aware of these ob- 
jections and voted accordingly. 

*» Journal, pp. 5, 7. 



184 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

on these four committees.^" Although ten of the fifteen coun- 
ties of the territory were represented on these four committees, 
only three of the counties were north of the Missouri River .^^ 
And of the twelve committee places only four were held by the 
delegates who represented that half of Missouri's population 
that lay north of the River and in the county of Cooper. Fur- 
ther, only one chairmanship of these four was given to this 
section. This unfairness was partly offset, however, by the 
fact that although the northern and extreme western counties 
were allowed only four representatives on these committees, 
these four controlled two committees.^^ But on the other two 
committees these counties had no representatives whatever to 
voice their wishes. 

The four committees appointed on Tuesday, June 13th, 
reported to the convention on Friday, June 16th, the several 
parts of the constitution that they had drafted .^^ Cook of 
Madison then made a motion that the several reports be com- 
mitted to a select committee composed of one member from 
each of the four committees, for the purpose of forming these 
reports into one consistent whole. Thomas asked for the 
reading of these reports, that the convention might see the 
necessity of the commitment. This request very singularly, 
we think, appears to have aroused much discussion among the 
delegates. Remarks were make by such eminent men as 
Thomas, Heath, Green, Cook of Madison, Cook of Ste. Gene- 
vieve, Buckner, Emmons and Bates. An entire day was spent 
considering this very commonplace request, which in itself if 



•• Scott bad not then taken his seat, the appointment of Rector and Bates 
from St. Louis naturally excluded McNair and Pratte, since the appointment 
of more than two members from one county would probably have aroused criti- 
cism. 

•' Of the twelve committee places on these four committees, eight were held 
by delegates from Washington, St. Charles, Cooper, Madison, Ste. Genevieve, 
Montgomery, Jefferson, and Howard; two, from St. Louis; and two, from Cape 
Girardeau. It is singular that New Madrid was the only county having two or 
more delegates that was not represented on these committees. No county's 
delegates constituted a majority of any committee. See supra. Chap. V. on the 
occupations represented on these four committees. 

" These two committees were the legislative and bill of rights committee. 

" Journal, p. 10. The chairman of these committees presented their reports 
severally except in the case of the executive committee, whose work was reported 
by Cook of Madison and not by Rector. Mo. Intell., June 24, 1820. 



Labors oj the Convention. 186 

granted would probably not have taken over an hour's time. 
We can see no sensible reason for any of the delegates opposing 
Thomas' motion unless it was either a sincere desire on the part 
of some to facilitate business and not to get involved in debate 
so early in the session, or the fear of others that the convention 
would be too thoroughly enlightened, either favorably or un- 
favorably, regarding certain parts of the constitution before 
these parts could be successfully opposed or defended by some 
leaders of that body. The opponents of Thomas' motion were 
finally successful and the reading of the four reports was dis- 
pensed with : Cook's motion for a select committee was adopted 
and Jones, Evans, Cook of Ste. Genevieve and Ramsay, were 
appointed on it.^^ 

We regard the work accomplished by the convention on 
this day, June 16th, as significant. First, certain leaders in 
that body then actually accomplished the remarkable feat of 
persuading the delegates not to hear the reports of those com- 
mittees that they had authorized and that had been appointed, 
to draft a constitution for Missouri. These reports were never 
read or printed. Their contents were as much a sealed book 
to the large majority of the delegates as they are to us. The 
original draft of Missouri's first constitution will never be 
known. It is certain that a determined fight was made to ac- 
complish this virtual suppression of these original reports. We 
believe that this suppression was a thoroughly and deeply 
planned, an ably and successfully executed, step towards ob- 
taining the substantial adoption of Bates' defeated resolution 
of June 13th. What could not be won directly was to be gained 
indirectly. Our conviction is strengthened not only by what 
immediately followed on June 16th, but also by this, that the 
report or reports on this constitution of no other committees, 
however insignificant, were ever recommitted to a new com- 
mittee without either having previously been read and acted 
upon by the convention or printed for the use of its members. 
Second, on this day a small committee was decided upon and 
appointed, which in actual power was simply Bates' original 



" Afo. Intell., June 24, 1820; Journal, p. 10. The Journal reveals nothing 
regarding this struggle; we obtained our account from the Mo. Intell. 



186 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

committee resurrected from its grave of defeat.^^ The author 
of the former was Cook of Madison, of the latter, Bates; the 
one was called a select committee and its powers and duties in 
drafting a constitution were practically unlimited, the other 
was not given a name and its powers were to draft a constitu- 
tion. This slight and wholly superficial difference was sufficient, 
aided undoubtedly by new promises and combinations, to snatch 
victory from defeat. Finally, the select committee appointed 
on this day was singularly unrepresentative of the districts of 
Missouri Territory. This committee of all the committees ap- 
pointed during this convention, should have been the most 
representative of the several parts of Missouri Territory. The 
unlimited power vested in it to draft a constitution raised it 
above all other committees in importance. It was in essence 
the four original committees contracted to one committee and 
reduced to four members. But while a certain amount of in- 
justice to the western and northern counties was apparent in 
the membership of the four committees, this injustice was 
equity itself when contrasted with the obvious discrimination 
shown in the membership of the select committee. In spite 
of the fact, more or less appreciated by the convention, that 
half of Missouri's population was in the tier of northern and 
far western counties in 1820, these counties had only one dele- 
gate on this select committee, while the other half of the terri- 
tory had three delegates on it. Another significant feature 
regarding the composition of this all powerful committee is 
this, that of its four members three were lawyers of the highest 
ability and influence. In other words, of the nine lawyer dele- 
gates, one appointed the committee that made the original 
draft of Missouri's first constitution and three absolutely con- 



" According to the Journal, p. 10, the reports of the four committees "were 
recommitted to a select committee." It is true that the correspondent of the 
Mo. Intell., June 24, 1820, states that Cooli of Madison, who was the author of 
the select committee motion, favored this select committee in order to have it 
unify these four reports. But it is quite improbable that this purpose or argument 
of Cook's was incorporated in his motion. And, further, the Journal is very 
explicit in all other cases in stating the duty of each committee. Its silence here 
can be attributed only to this, that the duty of the select committee was not set 
forth in the motion that created it. And, finally, the ignorance of the convention 
regarding the contents of the reports of the four committees, enabled the select 
committee to alter at will those reports and even frame a practically new draft. 



Labors of the Convention. 187 

trolled that committee. Our summaries are even these: (1) 
fifty per cent of Missouri's population in 1820, the extreme 
northern and western portions, was given a representation of 
only twenty-five per cent on the select committee; the other 
fifty per cent of Missouri's population, the southern portion, 
had a representation of seventy-five per cent in this same body: 
(2) twenty-two per cent of the delegates, the nine lawyers in 
the convention, was given a representation of seventy-five per 
cent on the select committee, — an overwhelming working 
majority in any business — ; the other seventy-eight per cent 
of the delegates, the business, agricultural, and professional 
men, had a representation of only twenty-five per cent on this 
committee.*^ 

The ability of the select committee to accomplish work 
with dispatch, is seen in the fact that it reported to the conven- 
tion on the day following its creation." Fifty copies of this 
report were ordered printed for the use of the delegates; but 
since not one of these pamphlets has been preserved, and, owing 
also to the unsatisfactory and incomplete character of the 
Journal, it is impossible to obtain the slightest clue as to the 
contents of this report. The different parts of this report were 
considered from time to time by the convention resolved into a 
committee of the whole. In this committee the constitution 
was discussed section by section, and it is regrettable that no 
minutes of these debates were kept either by some member or 
by the secretary of the convention. As articles of the constitu- 
tion were decided upon by the committee of the whole, they 
were reported by it to the convention for a third reading."^ On 



" Cf. supra, chap. V., on the personnel of the convention. We are unable 
to explain why Rector and Thomas, the respective chairman of the executive 
and judicial committees, were not appointed on this select committee. It seems 
that this would have been a natural selection and in the case of Ramsay and 
Jones, the respective chairmen of the legislative and bill of rights committees, 
this plan was followed. It is not improbable that both Rector and Thomas 
were not personae gratae to Barton, and Thomas' request to have the four reports 
read to the convention seems to be in line with this assumption. 

»' Journal, p. 10. The Journal, here speaks of the select committees as one 
"appointed for the piu-pose of revising and consolidating the different reports 
made to the convention relating to the constitution to be formed." 

" The Journal is not clear in its account of this last point. The minutes of 
the proceedings of the convention seem to indicate that the committee of the 
whole reported directly to the convention; the duty of the committee on style, 



188 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

this third reading the convention considered the constitution 
section by section. The Journal for the first time now throws 
a Uttle light on the different parts of that instrument; but this 
Hght is provokingly unsatisfactory. As no section of the con- 
stitution is printed in the Journal unless some amendment was 
proposed and frequently even then only the amendment is given, 
it is difficult if not impossible to determine the substance of 
many of the sections either as reported by the committee of the 
whole or as adopted at this time by the convention.*® 

On June 29th Bates submitted a resolution that provided 
for the appointment of what might be appropriately called a 
committee on style. Bates' resolution was adopted by the 
convention, and Bates, Cook of Ste. Genevieve and Findlay, 
were appointed on the committee.^*' The duty and power of 
this committee on style, as set forth in the resolution, were 
to revise, arrange and transpose, if necessary, the sections of 
the constitution as passed by the committee of the whole with- 
out altering in any respect the substance thereof. It was, 
therefore, purely a committee on style or revision, a body pos- 
sessing no original legislative power. Although the provisions 
of the resolutions relating to this committee on style were clear, 
it does not appear that this committee followed them. In the 
first place, it did not revise the constitution after the action of 
the committee of the whole but considered that document after 
the convention had passed upon it on its third reading. We do 
not, however, see any special significance in this departure from 
instructions. In the second place, although the committee on 
style was forbidden to alter the substance of any section of the 



which will next be considered, was "to revise, arrange, and where it may be neces- 
sary, transpose the sections of the constitution, as the same have passed the 
committee of the whole without altering in any respect the substance thereof." 
{Journal, p. 15.) It does not appear, however, that this new committee, the 
committee on style, ever revised the reports of the committee of the whole until 
after these reports were acted upon by the convention. 

»» We have supplemented the Journal's accoimt of the drafting and adopting 
of the constitution with the accounts in the Missouri newspapers of that period. 
One of our greatest losses is the two missing issues of the Mo. Intell. of July 8th 
and 15th, 1820. which would undoubtedly have cleared up several of oiu* problems 
in this line. The flies of the other Missouri newspapers covering the months of 
June and July are either incomplete or contain little information on the workings 
of the convention. 

•» Journal, p. 15. 



Labors of the Convention. 189 

constitution, it appears that this was done in several instances. 
The comparative ease with which this alteration could be ac- 
complished made this prohibition of little actual worth. The 
constitution as acted upon on its third reading by the convention 
was not printed, nor was the constitution as reported by the 
committee of the whole printed; the first printed draft of the 
constitution was that reported by the select committee, which 
draft had been changed in the committee of the whole and later 
in the convention. The failure of the committee to print the 
constitution as it was handed over to the committee on style, 
enabled that committee to exercise powers that were not granted 
to it. This last function was rendered even more secure by the 
total absence of any record of the changes made by the com- 
mittee of the whole on the report of the select committee and 
by the incomplete, almost obscure, minutes, kept by the sec- 
retary, of the proceedings of the convention on its consideration 
of the report of the committee of the whole, combined with 
those very simple and apparently unimportant, but really 
most significant, powers of the committee on style to revise, 
arrange, and, if necessary, transpose the sections of the con- 
stitution. By these powers, the committee on style, was 
easily enabled to so rearrange the sections that in the absence 
of a printed copy of the constitution as reported either by the 
committee of the whole or by the convention, few delegates 
could have detected all the changes made. 

The committee on style reported from time to time to the 
convention the various articles of the constitution that had 
been submitted to it for revision. Although nearly all of the 
constitution passed through the hands of this committee, its 
report on only three articles was ordered printed ,^^ and not 
one of these printed copies has been preserved. Moreover, it 
is, with very few exceptions, impossible to obtain from the 
Journal a complete knowledge of what these various reports 
were. The same obstacles here confront the research worker 
that are met with in considering the reports of the committee 
of the whole to the convention. There is, however, this ad- 



•'These were on the legislative, executive and judicial departments. Journal, 
p. 27. 



190 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

vantage in analyzing the report of the committee on style: 
In some instances where the text of a reported section is not 
given in the Journal and that section is not later changed by 
the convention, its wording is the same as was finally inserted 
in the constitution. The difficulty lies in ascertaining the 
identity of the number of the section as reported and its number 
as adopted. In nearly all other cases the contents of a reported 
section is given in full in the Journal, i. e., in those cases where 
amendments to sections were proposed or adopted by the con- 
vention. 

The committee on style was one of the two most important 
committees that framed Missouri's first constitution. However, 
it did not, we believe, make any important alterations in several 
articles of that instrument, although these articles were re- 
ported upon by it in a manner similar to the method pursued 
in handling the body of the constitution. The parts we refer 
to are: "Article VIII. of Banks," "Article XI. Of The Permanent 
Seat Of Government," and the "Schedule" of the constitution. 
The importance and publicity attached to these three subjects 
rendered any shadowy alteration of their contents a perilous 
undertaking for any committee, even though that committee 
was composed of the leaders of the convention. The con- 
centration of the convention's attention on any part of the 
constitution greatly compromised the otherwise commanding 
leadership of certain men. And few parts of that document 
were more closely followed by every delegate, public men, 
editor, and a large majority of the voters of Missouri, than 
those few clauses that regulated the establishing of a State 
bank, the determining of a permanent and a temporary seat of 
government, and that settled the apportionment of the members 
of the first State legislature. Three special committees were 
appointed to handle these subjects even after they had been 
considered by the committee of the whole following the report 
of the select committee. 

On June 26th a committee composed of Cook of Ste. Gene- 
vieve, Pratte and Dawson, was appointed to inquire into what 
action should be taken by the convention regarding the pro- 
posed gift of four sections of land from the United States gov- 



Labors of the Convention. 191 

ernment for a permanent seat of government of Missouri.^^ 
On July 3d this committee reported and its report, after a reading, 
was laid on the table.*' Nothing further was done with this 
report and its contents is not known. On the same day that 
this committee reported another committee composed of Jones, 
Houts and McFerron, was appointed to report on the Schedule 
and Banking articles of the constitution." On July 6th, this 
last committee reported to the convention on a "State Bank 
and Branches" and on the "Schedule," and these were referred 
to and considered by the committee of the whole.*^ The con- 
tents of these two reports are not known.** The schedule as 
finally reported by the committee of the whole to the con- 
vention contained sections on a permanent and a temporary 
seat of government as well as provisions regulating the transition 
from a territorial to a state government in Missouri. The 
committee on style did not change the important sections of 
the schedule but it did report that section of it which related 
to the permanent seat of government as a separate article, and 
this revision was agreed to by the convention.*^ The report 
of the committee of the whole on a state bank was displaced by 
a substitute article submitted to the convention by Bates.** 
The debate in the convention over this subject was extended 
and lasted for several days. Bates' substitute was finally re- 
ferred to a new banking committee composed of Findlay, 
Reeves and Riddick.*^ This new committee reported a substi- 
tute for Bates' very conservative bank measure and this new 
substitute was adopted by the convention. 



•• Journal, p. 13. The author of the resolution that created this committee 
was Cook of Ste. Genevieve. It is of interest to notice that no northern or 
western delegate was on this committee and also that the agricultural class was 
imrepresented. 

•> Ibid., p. 23. 

•« Ibid., p. 20. Findlay was the author of the motion that created this com- 
mittee. 

"Ibid., pp. 27f. 

" The former, on banks, was ordered printed, but no copy exists. 

•' Ibid., pp. 39, 45. The committee on style reported the schedule on July 
13th and the permanent seat of government article on the 15th. 

•• Ibid., pp. 27fr. 

"Ibid., p. 30. Findlay was the author of the motion creating this new 
bank committee. 



192 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

The last committee on the constitution to be appointed 
was that on enrollment. On July 12th, Findlay, Cook of Ste. 
Genevieve and Bates, were appointed on this committee and 
on the 13th, the secretary of the convention was ordered to 
deliver to it "the different articles of the constitution as they 
shall have been acted on, for the purpose of having them en- 
grossed for a third reading, and final passage." '° On the 17th 
of July the engrossed constitution was read in its final passage 
and was adopted by a vote of thirty-nine to one. Emmons 
was absent on this final vote owing to indisposition. Mc- 
Ferron cast a vote against the adoption of the constitution 
because of his objection to that section which disqualified every 
citizen naturalized since 1804 from being a qualified candidate 
for governor of Missouri. ^^ On the 19th the committee on 
enrollment reported to the convention that the constitution 
had been truly enrolled. It was then signed by the president 
and by all the delegates, "and countersigned by the secretary." ^' 



"Ibid., p. 39. A committee was appointed on the 17th to cause the con- 
stitution to be translated into the French language, and three himdred copies 
to be printed and distributed for the use of the French inhabitants. Pratte, 
Chouteau and Riddick were appointed on this committee. Jbid., p. 46. 

'> Ibid., pp. 46f. McFerron obtained leave of the convention to enter this 
objection on the Journal. McFerron's objection was to Art. IV. sec. 2. 

^* Ibid., pp. 47f. 



CHAPTER VII. 

AUTHORSHIP OF THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION 

OF 1820. 

The authorship of the Missouri constitution of 1820 will 
always prove an interesting subject for discussion and investiga- 
tion. This subject carries all the "ear-marks" for controversial 
writing that are so characteristic of many questions in English 
constitutional history. The latter are settled in a "final" 
manner every decade but each settlement is only a new basis 
for further controversy. The facts at hand have always proven 
sufficient for a decision but not sufficient to prevent a refutation 
of that decision or to prevent a different interpretation. So 
in the case of the authorship of the Missouri constitution of 
1820, there has always existed data enough to warrant a con- 
viction, but, curiously, this data has either been of an untrust- 
worthy character, or has not been carefully interpreted, or has 
been entirely passed over to give place to rumor. The evidence 
at hand is today, however, sufficiently strong to warrant a 
scientific investigation and discussion of this subject. 

The secondary authorities are not satisfactory, advancing 
little or no evidence for their statements.^ Their conclusions, 



' Darby, op. cit., p. 28, states as follows: "The most Important provisions 
of that instrument were framed by David Barton ; and from that day to the present 
it has been called and known as the Barton Constitution." (Darby published his 
Recollections in 1880.) 

Billon, op. cit., p. 106, MM., who probably followed Darby on this point, 
says the constitution was "mostly the work of David Barton." (Billon published 
his Annals of 180^-21 in 1888.) Houck, III. 250, agrees with Billon. 

Both Darby and Billon deserve consideration for many of their statements 
that are even xmsupported with evidence. Both were contemporaries and partly 
makers of the events that occurred in Missouri history almost from the admission 
of that State to the date of the publication of their works, — a period of over 
half a century. There is, therefore, probably some element of value in the fore- 
going quotations; but to accept these statements unquestioned is impossible. 

Switzler, Carr, and Davis and Durrie make no comment on the authorship 
of this constitution. 

Hodder, Side Lights on the Mo. Compromise, rejects Darby and Billon regard- 
ing Barton's authorship. He very suggestively writes: "The meagre record of 
the Journal furnishes no support for it. It would seem to be the result of con- 
fusing the authorship of the constitution with the name given to the convention 

M S — 13 (193) 



194 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

therefore, can have no more value here than merely to corrobo- 
rate or to contradict what will have been determined on better 
evidence. And, as is well known, neither mere corroboration 
nor contradiction adds to or detracts from the intrinsic worth 
of a historical fact. 

The source material and the indirect evidence available 
are, however, very valuable and are of a trustworthy character. 
The former is confined to the Journal of the convention and to 
newspaper articles: the latter consists principally of those 
biographical facts that relate to the personnel of the convention. 
One is the foundation for our investigation, the other supplements 
and checks the former. Both are so closely related that either 
would be unreliable if unsupported by the other. We are, 
therefore, forced to interpret the source material not only by 
what it seems to say but also by what the biographies of the 
delegates will permit it to say. Thus the acts of the delegates 
in the convention and the lives of these men outside that body 
enable us to determine in a general way the authorship of Mis- 
souri's constitution of 1820. 

In determining the authorship of Missouri's constitution 
of 1820 we purpose to interpret the activity of the delegates on 
constitution measures in four ways. First, we shall determine 
what delegates, acting as individuals and not as committees, 
were introducers of measures on which no vote was recorded; 
second, what delegates, acting in their individual capacity, were 
introducers of important measures on which votes were re- 
corded; third, what delegates were successful and what were 
unsuccessful in voting on important measures; and fourth, 



by reason of Barton's having been its presiding officer." Hodder thinks that 
Bates was the leading spirit of the convention and by being chairman of the com- 
mittee on style "occupies with reference to the first constitution of Missoiul 
the position which Gouveneur Morris occupies with reference to the Constitution 
of the United States." {Am. Hist. Assn. Report, 1909, p. 156; Mo. Hist. Review, 
v. 142.) We are unable to accept all of Hodder's statements regarding Bates* 
relation to this constitution. We are certain that Hodder did not make a careful 
examination of the Journal nor was he sufficiently informed regarding the per- 
sonnel of the convention. We appreciate, however, the high worth of the remainder 
of his paper and, further, that this question of the authorship of Missouri's first 
constitution was not an essential part of Hodder's study. Oiu- objections to 
Hodder's explanation of the constitution's authorship will be apparent as we 
proceed. 



Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 195 

what delegates were appointed on committees that drafted 
the constitution.^ 

The convention considered and decided thirty-three dif- 
ferent constitution measures on which no vote was recorded. 
Of these thirty-three measures twenty-nine were important. 
These measures were introduced by fifteen delegates. Bates 
introduced five measures: two of these were important, one 
only relatively important, and two unimportant, — all five were 
adopted.^ McFerron introduced four measures: three were 
important, of which one was adopted, and one unimportant, 
which also carried.'* The single important measure of Mc- 
Ferron's that carried, proved immediately to be the initiatory 
measure to a proposition which he was opposed to and which 
was adopted. In short, McFerron's one conspicuous victory 
proved a defeat.^ John Cook introduced four measures: three 
were important, and one of doubtful significance, — all four were 
adopted.^ Scott, Riddick and Perry, each introduced three 



' The meagerness of the Journal's accomit of the convention makes necessary 
such a detailed manner of proof. The absence of speeches and letters of the dele- 
gates on this subject also makes essential such a minute analysis of the votes of 
the delegates. 

» Journal, pp. 36, 38, 40, 42. Bates'es two important measures were the 
striking out of the constitution a section which made it commandatory on the 
legislature to suppress duelling and a section which made judgments confessed 
for debt or damages in any court of record or before a justice of the peace, as 
valid as judgments rendered in the ordinary course of legal proceedings. His 
relatively important measure provided for the first revision of the laws to be made 
within three years instead of five. One of Bates' unimportant measures, a very 
interesting one, gave the name "Declaration of Rights" instead of its previous 
designation, "General Provisions," to those fundamental principles of individual 
liberty that are so deeply imbedded in the laws of English speaking people. 

• Ibid., pp. 21, 25, 40, 43. McFerron's three important measures, the second 
of which was adopted, were to give the legislature power to abolish the office of 
lieutenant-governor, to expressly give equity jurisdiction to the State courts, 
and to insert in the constitution an excellent and advanced section on public 
schools, which section also included an educational qualification for voters after 
1841. His unimportant measure was section two of article XIII. of the constitu- 
tion. 

» Ibid., p. 40. McFerron amended the first section of the article on the 
judiciary so as to expressly give equity jurisdiction to the State's courts. Bates 
then established the office of chancellor, which was opposed by McFerron. 

'Ibid., pp. 22, 31, 37, 44. Cook's amendment relating to the election of 
sheriffs and coroners is not clear to us. His three important measures enlarged 
the powers of the permanent seat of government commissioners that were to be 
appointed at the first session of the legislature, reduced the minimum size of 
new counties from six hundred and twenty-five square miles to foiu* hundred. 



196 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

important measures. All of Scott's measures were adopted; 
two of Riddick's; and one of Perry's.^ Buckner, Ramsay and 
Hammond, each introduced two important measures. All of 
Buckner's and Ramsay's measures and one of Hammond's, 
were adopted.^ Boone, Dawson, Jones, Ray and Thomas, 
each introduced an important measure. The measures of 
Dawson, Jones and Ray were adopted; part of Thomas'es 
carried; and Boone's failed to carry. Evans introduced a 
measure, that passed, which struck out an unknown section 
and inserted a new one. The new section was later struck 
out.^ The fifteen delegates who introduced the thirty-three 



and included section 2 of article X. of the constitution, which conformed to the 
conditions of the Enabling Act regarding the free navigation of all navigable 
streams in or bordering on Missouri. 

' Scott was the author of the clause that disqualified United States soldiers 
from voting in Missouri, of the section that empowered the legislature to determine 
the salary of its members, and of both sections of article VI. of the constitution 
which related to the establishment of a public school system and a state university. 
(Journal, pp. 35, 36, 37f.) Scott may be justly called the father of Missouri's 
educational system, having not only obtained from Congress the land grants for 
this purpose but having also written the broad, constitutional provisions governing 
these grants. 

Riddick was the author of the clause that gave the legislature power to change 
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the circuit courts in civil cases, and of the 
clause that limited the number of branches of the state bank to five. He also 
introduced a measure to strike out the clause that empowered the legislature to 
pass laws permitting slave-owners to emancipate their slaves. This was lost. 
(Journal pp. 23, 30, 36.) 

Perry was the author of the four year term for senators. He introduced a 
measure striking out the $2,000.00 a year minimum salary clause for judges, 
with the view of inserting $1,600.00. The $2,000.00 was struck out, but $1,800.00 
was inserted. He later had the $1,800.00 struck out, but $2,000.00 was inserted 
despite Perry's opposition. Thus these two last important measures of Perry 
were lost. Perry belonged to the low-salary faction of the convention that fought 
hard, though unsuccessfully, to reduce the compensation allowed the state officers 
by the constitution. (Journal, pp. 16, 24, 40.) 

» Buckner introduced one measure limiting the maximum capital stock of 
the state bank to five million dollars and another excepting priests and preachers 
from being subject to military duty or from being compelled to bear arms. (Jour- 
nal, pp. 30, 42.) Ramsay introduced one measure that was the same as Buck- 
ner's regarding bank stock and another that prescribed biennial sessions of the 
legislature and the time of meeting. (Journal, pp. 28, 37.) Hammond was the 
author of a measure which made it commandatory on the legislature to suppress 
duelling. After the passage of the section. Bates had it struck out. Hammond 
was also the author of the section which compelled a debtor to surrender his 
property according to the manner prescribed by law if he expected to be secure 
from imprisonment for debt. (Journal, pp. 36, 42.) 

• Boone tried to have the temporary seat of government established at St. 
Charles Instead of at St. Louis. His measure lost. (Journal, p. 32.) Dawson was 
the author of the thirty year minimum age qualification of judges. (Ibid., p. 



Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 197 

measures in which no vote was recorded fall naturally into four 
classes. The first class consisted of Bates, John Cook and 
Scott. These three men introduced and had adopted nine 
important measures and three unimportant ones. They were 
the authors of thirty-one per cent of the important measures 
introduced and of fifty per cent of those adopted. Again, they 
were the authors of seventy-five per cent of the unimportant 
measures introduced and adopted. The second class consisted 
of Riddick, Buckner and Ramsay. These delegates introduced 
six important measures of which five were adopted. They 
were the authors of twenty-one per cent of the important 
measures introduced and of twenty-eight per cent of those 
adopted. The third class consisted of Dawson, Ray, Hammond 
and Perry. These four men introduced seven important 
measures of which four were adopted. They were the authors 
of twenty-four per cent of the important measures introduced 
and of twenty- two per cent of those adopted. The fourth 
class consisted of Boone, Evans, Jones, McFerron and Thomas. 
These five introduced seven important measures and one un- 
important one, of which only the last was adopted. They 
were the authors of twenty-four per cent of the important 
measures introduced but failed to have one adopted. 

These figures make it evident that the principal authors 
of this kind of adopted measures were Bates, John Cook and 
Scott. The individual successful average of each of the dele- 
gates of the first class was sixteen and two-thirds per cent; of 
the second class nine and one-third per cent; of the third class 
five and one-half per cent, and of the fourth class, 0%. The 
delegates of all four classes were men of ability and were active 
in political affairs. Their part in framing Missouri's con- 
stitution of 1820 would have been a very important one had 
they accomplished nothing more. This is especially true of 



23.) Jones was the author of a section requiring state or United States oflScials 
to resign their oflflce fifteen days before their appointment or election to a new 
office. (Ibid., p. 17). This was adopted but later was omitted from the consti- 
tution. Ray reduced the minimum size of old coimties from twenty-flve miles 
square to twenty. (Ibid., p. 37.) For Tbomas'es measures see Journal, p. 26. 
For Evan'es, ibid., p. 27. 



198 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Bates, John Cook and Scott, and in a degree of Riddick, Buck- 
ner and Ramsay.^" 

The convention considered and decided sixty-nine consti- 
tution measures on which the vote was recorded. Of these 
measures, forty-eight were important. ^^ Seven of these had 
no recorded authors; the remaining forty-one were introduced 
by sixteen delegates. These sixteen delegates fall naturally 
into two classes: those who were able to have some of their 
measures adopted; and those who were entirely unsuccessful. 

The first class consisted of five delegates. They intro- 
duced fourteen important measures, of which six were adopted. 
Bates introduced three measures, of which two were adopted. 
Buckner introduced five measures, of which one was adopted. 
John Cook introduced two, of which one was adopted. Ham- 
mond introduced three and won one. Scott introduced and 
won one. ^2 These five delegates were the authors of this kind 
of adopted measures. They included the three principal 



'"Barton's ofiQcial position in the convention or his political astuteness pro- 
hibited him from introducing measures in person. He never, however, missed 
casting a vote. 

" The final vote on the adoption of the constitution is not included in these 
forty-eight measures. Only McFerron voted against the adoption of the con- 
stitution, so that no trace of authorship of that instrument is found in this vote. 

12 Bates was the author of the section that prohibited the establishing of a 
religious corporation and of the section that established the office of chancellor. 
He failed to have struck out the section that provided for the removal of judges 
on address of the general assembly. (Journal, pp. 26, 40, 41.) 

Buckner had struck out the clause that provided an educational qualifica- 
tion for voters after 1841. He failed to carry the following provisions: one 
for a one year term for representatives; one, for a six year term for judges; one 
which reduced the representation of certain counties by one representative; and 
one which established St. Charles instead of St. Louis as the first meeting place 
of the general assembly. (Journal, pp. 34, 41, 43, 45, 46.) 

John Cook was the author of section one, article XL, of the constitution 
which prohibited the general assembly from interfering with the primary disposal 
of the soil of the United States, and from taxing non-resident landowners higher 
than resident landowners. He failed to have struck out the clause empowering 
the general assembly to delay judgments, etc. six months. (Journal, pp. 25, 44.) 

Hammond had struck out a clause that granted the legislature more power 
in emancipating slaves. (Journal, p. 36.) He failed to have struck out a clause 
which would have resulted in entirely disqualifying state senators and represent- 
atives from all civil ofllces except elective ones during their terra. He also failed to 
have adopted a clause which would have qualified for the governorship any citizen 
of the United States who was naturalized at the time of the cession of Louisiana. 
(Journal, pp. 35, 39.) 

Scott introduced a measure that struck out St. Louis as the temporary seat 
of government and provided only for the first meeting of the general assembly 
there with power to adjourn elsewhere till 1826. This carried. (Journal, p. 45.) 



Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 199 

authors of measures on which no vote was recorded, Bates, 
John Cook and Scott, and the two able delegates Buckner and 
Hammond. 

The second class consisted of eleven delegates. They 
introduced twenty-seven important measures, of which none 
was adopted. Dawson, Emmons, and Riddick, each introduced 
one measure; Ramsay, two; Evans, Findlay, Green, Jones, 
Perry and Thomas, each, three; and McFerron, four,^^ These 
eleven delegates could not have left an impression on the con- 
stitution by these measures. 

The authorship of the constitution is also partly revealed 
in the votes cast by the delegates on the foregoing forty-eight 
important measures. This insight into the constitution is, 
however, gained in an indirect way. Of these forty-eight 
measures, only twelve were adopted, and of these twelve, two 
were nullified by negating each other and two had been reported 
by a committee. So only eight new measures of the forty-eight 
important measures were finally incorporated in the constitu- 



'• Dawson favored empowering the legislature to suppress duelling by making 
the parties fight to death in the presence of appointed, sworn ofificers. (Journal, 
p. 36.) Emmons favored removing the disqualification on priests and preachers 
from holding public oflace. (Ibid., p. 16.) Riddick proposed a tax qualification 
for voters. (Ibid., p. 34.) Ramsay proposed to abolish the court of chancery, 
and to strike out the thirty year minimum age qualification for judges. (Ibid., 
pp. 23, 41.) Evans favored locating the permanent seat of government at St. 
Louis provided St. Louis erected the state buildings. He also favored an eighteen 
year minimum age qualification for voters, and viva voce voting. (Ibid., pp. 
32, 34, 38.) Findlay opposed with two measures a minimum size for new counties. 
With a third measure he advocated such a limitation if applied to those counties 
lying east of the fifth principal meridian line. (Ibid., pp. 17, 37.) Green opposed 
disqualifying priests and preachers from holding public office. With two measures 
he favored individual responsibility of stockholders in a state bank for the debts 
of tlie bank. (Ibid., pp. 30, 35, 43.) Jones opposed giving the general assembly 
power to change the term and tenxu-e of the sheriff and coroner. He favored a 
section that prohibited large gifts to religious orders except by the consent of 
the general assembly. He also favored striking out that clause of the constitu- 
tion which empowered the permanent seat of government commissioners to buy 
land from individuals. (Ibid., pp. 22, 26, 31.) Perry attempted with three 
measures to lower the salary of the Governor and the Judges. (Ibid., pp. 20, 24.) 
Thomas favored a twenty-one year age qualification for representatives and a 
twenty-five year age qualification for senators. He favored striking out that 
provision in the constitution which empowered the legislature to provide that 
emancipated slaves leave the State. (Ibid., pp. 16, 18.) McFerron favored a 
one year term for representatives. He advocated with two measures a clause that 
qualified naturalized citizens of the United States for the governorship. He 
desired to abolish the office of lieutenant governor. (Ibid., pp. 15, 20, 21, 39.) 



200 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

tion.*^ Such meager data would be of little value for our 
purpose if used as direct evidence on the authorship of the con- 
stitution, but if used as indirect proof it is important. The 
votes of the delegates on the forty-eight important questions 
show to a great degree the divisions or "line-up" of the dele- 
gates in the convention. These votes show what delegates 
were successful either in endorsing the committee's reports or 
in amending them, and what delegates were unsuccessful in 
their voting. An analysis of the votes on these forty-eight 
measures reveal four groups of delegates. 

The first group of delegates was composed of those who as 
individuals were successful in their voting in a ratio ranging 
from three to one to seven to one. The individuals of this 
group cast five hundred eighty-two successful votes and only one 
hundred thirty-three unsuccessful ones. They cast forty-eight 
and one-half per cent of the successful votes and only twenty- 
five per cent of the unsuccessful ones. This group was composed 
of seventeen delegates. They were Barton, Bates, Boone, 
Chouteau, Clark, Cleaver, John Cook, Nathaniel Cook, Daw- 
son, Dodge, Heath, Rector, Riddick, Scott, Sullivan, Talbot, 
and Wallace. Only four of these. Barton, Clark, Nathaniel 
Cook and Riddick, voted on all forty-eight measures. Scott 
did not cast a vote until July eleventh and missed twenty-five 
of the forty-eight votes; Boone and Chouteau each missed 
seventeen votes; and Heath missed fifteen votes. The most 
successful voters of this class were Barton, Chouteau, the two 
Cooks, Dodge, Rector, and Scott. Of these seven delegates 



'« Six of the adopted measures were those introduced by Bates, John Cook, 
Scott, Buckner and Hammond. The other six adopted had no recorded authors. 
They were on the following subjects: providing that the lieutenant-governor 
should be president of the senate and have a vote on a tie (Journal, p. 21) ; lowering 
the minimum salary of judges from $2,000.00 to $1,800.00 a year (Ibid., p. 24); 
adopting the original minimum salary of $2,000.00 a year for judges (Ibid., pp. 
40f.); providing that one-half the state bank stock should be reserved to the 
State (Ibid., p. 28.); adopting Findlay's committee's bank article, the one finally 
Included in the constitution (Ibid., p. 30.) ; adopting the permanent seat of govern- 
ment article as reported by the committee and as amended by John Cook, and as 
finally incorporated in the constitution (Ibid., p. 32.). One measure on which 
the vote is recorded was lost. This provided that the temporary seat of govern- 
ment be at Potosi instead of at St. Louis. The author of this meas\ire was not 
recorded. (Ibid., p. 45.) 



Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 201 

Barton, Chouteau, John Cook, Rector and Scott stood highest 
in their voting average. 

The second group of delegates was composed of those who 
as individuals were successful in their voting in a ratio ranging 
from two to one to two and one-half to one. The individuals 
of this group cast three hundred and forty-one successful votes and 
one hundred and fifty-eight unsuccessful ones. They cast twenty- 
eight and one-half per cent of the successful votes and twenty- 
nine per cent of the unsuccessful ones. This group was com- 
posed of eleven delegates. They were Baber, Brown, Evans, 
Findlay, Green, Henry, Hatchings, Jones, Lillard, Perry and 
Pratte. Only three of these. Brown, Jones and Perry, voted 
on all forty-eight measures. Baber missed fifteen of the forty- 
eight votes. The most successful voters of this class were 
Evans, Findlay, Green and Jones. None of these four delegates 
was, however, as successful as any of the delegates in the first 
class. 

The third class of delegates was composed of those who as 
individuals were successful about half the time in their voting. 
The individual delegates of this group cast two hundred and 
thirty-one successful votes and one hundred and eighty-eight 
unsuccessful ones. They cast twenty per cent of the successful 
votes and thirty-three per cent of the unsuccessful ones. This 
group was composed of ten delegates. They were Bettis, Buck- 
ner, Burckhartt, Hammond, Houts, McNair, Ramsay, Ray, 
Reeves, and Thomas. Only two of these, Burckhartt and 
Houts, voted on all forty-eight measures. Buckner missed nine- 
teen and Thomas eighteen of the forty-eight votes. The most 
successful voters of this class were Buckner, Burckhartt, Houts 
and Ray. None of these stood, however, as high as any dele- 
gate in the second class on this point. 

The fourth class was composed of three delegates who were 
very unsuccessful in their voting. The individual delegates 
of this class cast thirty-eight successful votes and sixty-six un- 
successful ones. They cast three per cent of the successful 
votes and thirteen per cent of the unsuccessful ones. The 
delegates in this group were Byrd, Emmons and McFerron. 



202 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Emmons voted only nine times, missing thirty-nine of the 
forty-eight votes taken. 

An analysis of the foregoing data relating to the votes 
recorded on the forty-eight important measures reveals the 
following facts concerning the authorship of the constitution. 
First, the convention sustained its committees in their reports 
on the constitution and permitted few alterations. The con- 
vention adopted only eight new measures of the forty-eight 
important ones proposed. The leaders behind this movement 
for "regularity" were Barton, Bates, John Cook, Findlay and 
Rector. ^^ Although Chouteau and Scott were successful voters, 
their influence on the constitution was lessened in this respect 
by their long absences from the convention. Second, aiding 
this "regularity" and the leaders, was a majority of the dele- 
gates. Third, opposing these leaders in a conservative way 
were ten delegates, ^^ all men of ability and political experience. 
The leader of this opposition was Buckner. His activity on 
the floor in advocating changes in the reports of the various 
committees and his ability in securing some of his alterations 
adopted, both prove this leadership. Ranking next to Buckner 
in this work was Perry. Perry was the watchdog of the treasury 
and the low-salary man of the convention. These men and their 
assistants were not, however, able to accomplish much. And 
fourth, opposing the leaders of the convention in a radical 
manner were three delegates, ^^ who were hopelessly unsuccessful. 

The convention by adopting the committee method of 
procedure delegated great powers to few men. Although the 
various committees' drafts of the constitution were referred 
for discussion to the committee of the whole or to the convention 
and were there subject to alteration, adoption or rejection, still 
the original sections contained in these drafts were given more 
respect and consideration than substitute provisions received. 
Unless an officer or a committee fairly and democratically 
chosen by a body of men, is flagrantly incompetent or corrupt, 



" Barton, John Cook and Rector show this in their successful voting against 
innovations. Bates and Findlay do this by a comparatively high voting average 
and especially by their prominent committee positions. 

'• See supra, class three. 

" See supra, class four. 



Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 203 

the acts and reports of such officer or committee are generally 
approved by the appointors; and this is especially true of con- 
servative, deliberative bodies. The reason for this tendency 
is found not only in the economy of time and effort that it 
effects, but also in the unseen and usually unappreciated halo 
of semi-authority that invests these acts or reports. And this 
semi-authority is greatly increased in influence when the con- 
stituted officer and the members of the committees are the 
leaders among their fellow-delegates in debate, deliberation, 
conversation and writing. Such was the condition in Mis- 
souri's first constitutional convention. 

This ascendancy of the committee in the Missouri con- 
vention of 1820 is conclusively proven by the few changes made 
by that convention in the constitution as reported by the com- 
mittees. Of the thirty-three measures introduced on which 
no votes were recorded, twenty-nine were important. Of these 
twenty-nine measures, eighteen were finally incorporated in 
the constitution. Of the sixty-eight measures introduced on 
which the votes were recorded, forty-eight were important. 
Of these forty-eight measures, only eight new ones were incor- 
porated in the constitution. Thus of the hundreds of clauses 
in the original constitution as reported by the committees, 
only twenty-six measures were amended or added to. 

The greatest statesman, the leading and one of the most 
skillful politicians, the ablest orator and debater and the most 
popular public man in Missouri in 1820, was chosen president 
of the convention. Both by virtue of his position and of his 
talents, David Barton was the leading spirit and the most 
influential man in the convention. He was given the power 
of appointing all committees and this power was never limited 
by the delegates. Possessed of such authority, endowed with 
great ability, and having an inclination to exercise both. Barton 
exerted a most significant influence in the drafting and adopting 
of many provisions in the constitution. If to one man were to 
be accorded the honor of drafting the Missouri constitution of 
1820, that man would be David Barton. As a singular proof 
of Barton's influence even on the floor of the convention is the 
fact that his vote on a constitutional measure was practically 



204 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

identical with the adoption or rejection of that measure. Fur- 
ther, an analysis of the voting based on whether the votes cast 
were Barton or anti-Barton votes, gives the same results and 
divides the delegates into the same four classes as are obtained 
when the votes are analyzed from the standpoint of their being 
successful or unsuccessful votes on constitutional measures. 

Associated with Barton in framing the constitution in the 
committees were seven of his friends, John Rice Jones, John 
D. Cook, Edward Bates, James Evans, John Scott, Jonathan 
Smith Findlay, and, to some extent, Jonathan Ramsay. ^^ 
The first five of these were lawyers; Findlay was a schoolmaster- 
politician; and Ramsay, a successful farmer, a shrewd business 
man and a politician combined: all were aspirants for political 
honors. These men were not only active on the floor of the 
convention but, excepting Scott, they filled all the places on 
the two principal constitutional committees, and two of them 
held the chairmanship of the two most important minor com- 
mittees.^^ 

Of the forty-one delegates Jones was easily the most learned, 
the most highly educated, the most accomplished, and perhaps 
the most successful financially. One of the oldest men in the 
convention, Jones possessed the best trained and the deepest 
mind in that body. It is, therefore, not surprising that Barton 
appointed him chairman of the select committee, the first 
and only committee to draft a complete constitution for Mis- 
souri in 1820 that was printed and discussed by the conven- 



'» Although these men did not vote together on all measures, they had many 
views in common and were friends. Ramsay was, perhaps, less under the sway 
of Barton than any of the seven. Jones was more of a colleague than a lieutenant 
of Barton. 

' • The first four committees appointed to draft a constitution were of no 
importance. Their reports were never read by the convention or printed. The 
select committee was given practically unlimited power in changing these reports. 
We also do not regard the land committee on the permanent seat of government, 
composed of Coolf of Ste. Genevieve, Pratte and Dawson, of any importance in 
regard to the authorship of the constitution, since this report was tabled and never 
later considered. The committee on enrollment was purely a clerical body that 
was created simply to see that the constitution was correctly engrossed and en- 
rolled as it had been passed. The membership of this committee was the same 
as that of the committee on style except that Findlay was chairman of the former 
and Bates of the latter. 



Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 205 

tion.^o jhe constitution reported by this committee was the 
ground plan that guided the delegates in framing and adopting 
Missouri's first constitution. Jones was also appointed chair- 
man of the committee on schedule and banking, whose report 
was largely adopted by the convention so far as it related to 
purely schedule provisions and to the permanent seat of govern- 
ment.^^ 

The co-workers of Jones on the select committee were 
Evans, John D. Cook and Ramsay. The appointment of Evans 
to this committee was, we believe, largely a result of Barton's 
friendship for him. Both were boon companions, both enjoyed 
the cup, both were able lawyers and were about the same age, 
and both were at this time very popular in Missouri. It is 
a sad commentary on the lives of Barton and Evans that both 
later became mental and financial wrecks. The logical delegate 
for Evan's place on the select committee was General William 
V. Rector, the chairman of the original committee on the 
executive department. Barton and his friends probably did 
not trust Rector or could not rely on his support. The fatal 
rupture between these men may have had its inception about 
this time. Just three years and one week after the appoint- 
ment of the select committee, Joshua Barton, elder brother of 
David, was killed by T. C. Rector, brother of William V., in a 
duel, which was caused by the former charging General Rector 
of corruption in office: and one year and one day later through 
the efforts of Senator Barton, General William V. Rector was 
dishonorably dismissed from office by the head of the United 
States General Land Office, acting on order of the President of 
the United States.^^ 

The appointment of John D. Cook was also a pleasant and 
politic act of Barton's. The logical appointee for Cook's place 
was Judge Richard S. Thomas, chairman of the original com- 



" Jones had previoxisly been appointed chairman of the legislative committee, 
one of the four committees whose reports were handed over to the select com- 
mittee. 

" The other members of the schedule committee were Houts and McFerron. 
Judging from the barren results that McFerron obtained on the floor of the con- 
vention, it is not probable that he was able to thwart Jones on this committee. 
Little is known of Houts except that he was a merchant at this time. 

"Edwards Great West. p. 332; Mo. IntelL. July 31, 1824. 



206 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

mittee on the judiciary. Thomas' insurgent activity in trying 
to get the reports of the four original committees read before 
the convention was undoubtedly displeasing to the self-appointed 
leaders of that body. On the other hand, John D. Cook was 
loyal, was endowed with great ability, and with the aid of his 
elder brother, Nathaniel, who was also a delegate, wielded a 
remarkable influence.^^ Although a young man, being barely 
thirty years old, John D. Cook was the only delegate that was 
a member of both the select committee and the committee on 
style. He was also preeminent among the delegates in holding 
the largest number of constitution committee places, being a 
member of four committees and chairman of another,^^ and in 
being one of the two delegates later appointed to the Supreme 
Court of Missouri.2^ John Cook and Scott shared the distinc- 
tion of being the only delegates who ranked foremost in the 
convention in being introducers of adopted measures on which 
no votes were recorded, in being introducers of adopted measures 
on which votes were recorded, and in being leaders in casting 
successful votes. 

While Evans and John Cook worked in harmony with 
Barton, as is easily seen in a survey of the votes recorded in the 
Journal on the most important measures of the constitution, 
Ramsay seems to have maintained an independent attitude 
toward the lawyer junto. In fact, it is difficult to ascertain 
why General Jonathan Ramsay was appointed on the select 
committee instead of General Duff Green.'^® This may have 



" Both Evans and the Cooks were consistent supporters of Barton. 

'* Member of origmal judiciary committee, select committee, committee on 
style, committee on enrollment : chairman of public land committee on permanent 
seat of government. 

» Cook was appointed one of the first three judges of the Supreme Coiu"t of 
Missouri in 1820 by Governor McNair and again in 1822, after a constitutional 
amendment had passed that vacated the Supreme and Circuit Court Judgeships. 
He resigned in 1823 and in 1825 was appointed to the southern circuit of Missouri 
after its former incumbent, Richard S. Thomas, had been impeached. It is 
interesting to note that Thomas' chief advocate in his impeachment trial was 
John D. Cook. (Mo. Gazette, Dec. 6, 1820; Mo. Intell., Dec. 31, 1822, Feb. 1, 
1825; Houck, op. cit., III. 10.) 

" The original committee on the bill of rights, etc., was composed of Ramsay. 
Hammond and Green. One of these was to be appointed on the select committee: 
Barton chose Ramsay. Hammond was an impossible appointee owing to the 
selection of Jones, Evans and Cook, who all came from counties lying south of 
the Missouri River. It would have been obviously Impolitic to have appointed 



Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 207 

been done by Barton for fear that Ramsay, who really deserved 
the place, would otherwise feel insulted and wield his great 
influence in opposing important measures of the leaders.^^ 
If this was the purpose of Barton and his friends, of placating 
Ramsay, it was only partly successful.^* Ramsay's activity in 
the convention was directed towards realizing the wishes of his 
pioneer constituents, regardless of the approbation or criticism 
of the St. Louis and south-east Missouri delegates. Ramsay 
tried, however, to have struck out the thirty year minimum 
age qualification for judges. This was entirely for the advan- 
tage of Bates who was only twenty-six years of age at that time 
and who was a very probable candidate for appointment to the 
Supreme Court bench, if Governor Clark were elected .^^ Green 
was also under thirty years of age but was more inclined towards 
business than law. However, the machinery and the mind of 
the convention when opposed to Ramsay, was successful, and 
his influence was relatively small in the framing of the consti- 
tution. 

In striking contrast to Ramsay was the youthful Edward 
Bates. The latter had not yet attained the age of twenty- 
seven years, and under the constitution that he was so instru- 



the fourth member of this committee from that section. It was essential to have 
on the select committee at least one representative of the northern pioneer coun- 
ties. Ramsay was perhaps a stronger man for the place than Green. Ramsay 
was at this time forty-flve years old, possessed a commanding personality, and 
had great business ability. His military and civil record in Kentucky was dis- 
tinguished, and, despite his lack of education, he was a leader not to be ignored 
or antagonized. Besides, Ramsay was the type of man who could cast more 
votes on the floor than in the committee. Green, on the other hand, was only 
twenty-nine years old, and although a man of good education and a member of 
the bar, had the faculty of making enemies faster than friends. Even in his own 
county, Howard, Green by his fearlessness and his many enterprises had aroused 
much opposition. Green was also not pleasing to the St. Louis politicians in 
his stand for very conservative guards being imposed on stockholders of the state 
bank. He was, however, the superior of Ramsay in versatility and intellect, and 
later played an important part in the nation's history. 

»' Ramsay was so outvoted on this committee that he was helpless in thwart- 
ing the will of Barton and others, and his appointment was no risk in this respect. 

'• Ramsay opposed the following important measures that were advocated 
by the lawyer leaders: $2,000.00 salary for the governor (J., p. 20); a court of 
Chancery, composed on one Chancellor {J., pp. 23, 40, 41); high salary for judges 
(J., p. 24); state bank (J., pp. 29, 30); and favored individual responsibility of 
stockholders of state bank (,J., p. 30) and viva voce voting {.J., p. 38), both of which 
were opposed by Barton and some of his friends. 

"Journal, p. 41. 



208 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

mental in framing he was in 1820 disqualified by his youth from 
being governor, lieutenant-governor, state senator, judge of a 
circuit court, supreme court judge, or chancellor. Despite his 
age Bates was appointed as chairman of the committee on style, 
which in importance ranked next to, if it did not equal, the 
select committee. By order of the convention every article 
and section of the constitution after passing through the com- 
mittee of the whole was entrusted to this committee for proper 
revision. Its impress was, therefore, left on every part of that 
instrument. In appointing Bates at the head of the committee 
on style Barton not only filled an important place with a devoted 
friend and admirer but also with a remarkably gifted politician 
and lawyer. A man of high ideals, strong character, well- 
poised independence, fearless courage, and of almost unlimited 
intellectual capacity, Bates was a fitting choice to do the last 
constructive work on Missouri's first constitution and to perfect 
and polish that document for future generations.^" 

The other members of the committee on style, John D. 
Cook and Jonathan Smith Findlay, were also exceptionally 
able men. The latter, who alone of these three has not been 
considered, was a man of fine education, rare intellectual at- 
tainments, and high moral principles. Engaged at this time in 
school teaching, Findlay appears to have wielded considerable 
influence in the Boone's Lick county, and was greatly respected 
for his ability as a writer and for his courage as a man.^^ His 
last public office was that of register of the land office at Lex- 
ington, Missouri, which he held until two years before his death. 
Three of his brothers were Congressmen from Pennsylvania 
and Ohio, and one held the two highest offices in the gift of the 
former state, being elected Governor and later United States 
Senator.^2 Findlay enjoyed the full confidence of Barton and 
was appointed on two other committees, being chairman of both 
the committee on enrollment and the very important committee 
on a state bank and branches. The reports of both these com- 



«» Besides being appointed on the committee on style, Bates was also a member 
of the original committee on the judiciary and of the committee on enrollment. 
»' Afo. IntelL, July 16, 1819; Mar. 19. 1821; Nov. 10, 1832. 
" Ibid., Nov. 10. 1832. 



Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 209 

mittees were adopted by the convention without further un- 
necessary change, a compliment to their makers. The mem- 
bers of the latter committee besides Findlay were Benjamin 
H. Reeves of Howard and Colonel Thomas F. Riddick of St, 
Louis. Reeves was one of the leading men in north Missouri, 
was repeatedly elected state senator, and became Missouri's 
second lieutenant-governor." Riddick was the greatest of the 
founders of the St. Louis public school system. His official 
career in Missouri began in 1804 and continued till his death 
in 1830. He was probably the author of the article in the 
constitution on the state bank, as his experience in that line 
was more extended than that of either Findlay or Reeves.^* 

Although a member of no committee, the Honorable John 
Scott, a delegate from Ste. Genevieve, was very instrumental 
in the drafting of one entire article and several important 
sections of the constitution. To Scott belongs the great honor 
of being the author of Missouri's excellent constitutional pro- 
visions relating to education.'^ It was indeed appropriate 
that a university graduate should have been permitted by for- 
tune to be the one who not only obtained the large grants of 
public land that jr<*de possible the establishment of a great 
public school system of education in Missouri with a state 
university at its head but who also drafted and had adopted the 
fundamental provisions in that commonwealth's first constitu- 
tion that safeguarded the treasures and encouraged their eco- 
nomic conservation, on which Missouri's present free public 
school system and state university were founded.^® And, if we 
may be pardoned for a digression, equally appropriate was it 
that another university graduate, James S. Rollins, was later 
given the honor of fathering the bill that created the university 
that had been so carefully provided for by Missouri's last terri- 
torial Delegate and her first United States Representative in 



"Official Manual Mo., 1913-14, pp. 103, ISOff; Mo. Intell., Oct. 3, 1835. 

•< Billon, op. cit., pp. 188f; Edwards Great West, pp. 309ff; Mo. Gazette, April 
20, 1820. May 3, 1820, May 12, 1821; Darby, op. cit.. pp. 14, 18; Houck, op cit., 
II. pp. 383, 418, III. pp. 49, 71, 103. Riddick had been the largest stockholder 
and was the second president of the old Missouri Bank of St. Louis. 

"J., p. 38. 

•• Scott graduated from Princeton University in 1802. 

M S— 14 



210 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Congress. Scott was also the author of an important provision 
in the constitution that imposed a limitation on gerrymandering 
in the establishing of senatorial districts.^^ He also secured 
the adoption of a clause that disqualified United States soldiers 
and sailors in regular service from voting in this state, ^^ and 
was the author of that section of the constitution that pro- 
vided for the compensation of the members of the legislature.^' 
Together with John D. Cook, Scott secured the adoption of 
that section of the constitution that provided for the temporary 
seat of government.'*" On this last measure, the voting was 
sectional: all the St. Louis and the northern county delegates 
except three were opposed by all the southern representatives 
except one. Even Barton's and Bates' friends, as John Cook, 
Evans, Scott, Jones, and many others aligned themselves on 
this proposition against St. Louis and her politicians, and 
succeeded in leaving the question of the temporary seat of 
government an open one in the hands of the legislature instead 
of deciding in favor of St. Louis, which had been previously 
selected by the convention. On other questions, Scott voted 
^th the lawyers as a rule. Considering the few days that 
Scott's name appears among the ayes and nays, he was re- 
markably active and successful in the convention.^^ 

As a politician and a lawyer, John Scott was able, con- 
scientious, and popular. Although not a brilliant speaker like 
Barton or even Bates, he was a formidable opponent in debate. 
His superior education, scholarly habits, his perfect mastery 
of law and history, his attention to details, and his moral 
scruples, frequently enabled him to overcome more gifted 
orators and advocates. His friendship for Barton and Benton 
was a close one, and Benton's rupture with him over the Adams- 
Jackson contest inflicted a cruel wound to both. 

The framing of Missouri's constitution of 1820 was not the 
work of one man. The principal authors were Barton, Bates, 

"J., p. 34. 

'• Ibid. 

» Ibid., p. 36. 

*'J., pp. 45f. 

«' Scott's name does not appear In the aye and nay voting until July 11th, 
on which day the convention began the consideration of the report of the com- 
mittee on style. (</., pp. 33fr.) 



Authorship of the Missouri Constitution. 211 

John Cook, Jones, Findlay and Scott. These six delegates 
held first place as introducers of measures, as voters in the con- 
vention, and as members of the three most important com- 
mittees — the select committee, the committee on style, and the 
committee on a state bank. Barton was the leader both of the 
legally organized convention and of the political machine of 
that body. He wielded, therefore, the most important influence 
of all the delegates on the constitution. Bates, John Cook, 
Jones and Findlay, were the great organizers and committeemen 
of the convention. Scott was the one conspicuous delegate 
who, not holding a committee place, was able to accomplish 
things on the floor of the convention. Of these six delegates, 
five were lawy^ers, and one, Findlay, was a pedagogue-politician. 
All were remarkably able men. They later held political posi- 
tions ranging in importance from that of register of a land office 
to that of United States Senator and of United States cabinet 
official. 

The next set of delegates in importance was Evans, Ramsay, 
Riddick, Reeves, Rector and Green. Their impress on the 
constitution was, however, comparatively slight. Some were 
followers of the "organization;" several were independent but 
not hostile to the leaders. All were able men and were ambitious. 
Their biographies reveal six successful politicians who held 
offices ranging from that of state representative to that of 
national political boss. 

The third class of delegates who may possibly have influenced 
the framing of the constitution was Buckner, Perry and Ham- 
mond. These three delegates were leaders of the opposition. 
They were seemingly unable to accomplish much, but it is not 
improbable that some compromise measures were adopted 
through their influence. These men were well equipped both 
in ability and in experience. Their success in the convention 
was not, however, striking. The "machine" under the direc- 
tion of the leaders was able to accomplish nearly everything 
it desired. Barton, Bates, John Cook, Jones, Findlay and Scott, 
were the principal authors of the constitution of Missouri of 
1820. 



CHAPTER VIII. 
ORIGIN AND CONTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.^ 

The purpose of this chapter is to give an account of the 
origin and to analyze the content of the Missouri constitution 
of 1820. The origin of the Missouri constitution of 1820 will 
be considered by comparing its "Preamble" and thirteen articles 
with similar provisions of the then existing twenty-three state 
constitutions and the constitution of the United States. The 
special features of the Missouri constitution that were excep- 
tional in character, will also be set forth. The analysis of the 
content of the constitution will consist of dividing it into its 
logical parts in conformity with the accepted principles governing 
the present science of government. The Missouri constitution 
of 1820 followed the normal type of state constitutions and in 
general conformed with the accepted scientific principles gov- 
erning such organic acts. Few detailed provisions found their 
way into this constitution. It was a model of conciseness and 
perspicuity, dealing only in broad, general statements. It was 
essentially a constitution framed by a sovereign convention, 
and not a volume of purely ordinary legislative provisions that 
characterize so many modern state instruments. Owing to its 
merits in this respect, the Missouri constitution of 1820 lends 
itself to a simultaneous discussion of its origin and its content.^ 

In tracing the origin of the Missouri constitution of 1820 
and in estimating the influence exerted on it by other constitu- 
tions caution is required. This is on account of several things: 
first, verbatim copies in this constitution of sections in other 
constitutions were the exception; second, even when such copies 
occur they were sometimes the common property of several 
states; and third, most of the sections in this constitution, 



> For copy of the constitution see Appendix III. 

• This chapter is based on a much more detailed thesis submitted by the 
author in 1911 to the University of Missouri in partial fulfillment of the require- 
ments for the degree of Master of Arts. The title of this thesis is: "The First 
Constitution of Missouri. A study of its Origin, by Floyd Calvin Shoemaker." 
Beferences here to this work will be given to Shoemaker. 

(212) 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 213 

although similar to sections in other constitutions, were rarely 
confined to any one state but appeared here and there throughout 
the Union and were frequently found in a majority of state con- 
stitutions. Because of this it is extremely hazardous to say 
unqualifiedly that this or that state constitution was the source 
of a certain provision in the Missouri constitution. 

The Missouri constitution of 1820, excluding the schedule, 
naturally divides itself into three parts: a preamble; a defini- 
tion of boundaries; and a frame of government, its powers and 
limitations — the latter including a bill of rights. 

The preamble to the Missouri constitution of 1820 was 
unique. No state constitution of that time contained a pro- 
totype of it. In no other preamble were found the words "a 
free and independent republic." The framing and adopting of 
state constitutions by representatives of the people in con- 
vention assembled was widespread, although the practice of 
adoption or ratification by the people was gaining ground. In 
this respect Missouri followed the former rule. Some of the 
preambles attached to the constitutions of other states were 
long, others short. Some followed the pattern of the United 
States constitution, while others gave thanks to God or epito- 
mized man's natural rights. The constitutions of Kentucky, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, bear the closest 
resemblance to the Missouri constitution on this point.^ 

The definition of the boundaries of Missouri was set forth 
in article I, on "Boundaries." This was a verbatim copy of 
that part of the Missouri Enabling Act that prescribed what 
the boundaries of Missouri should be.* 

The frame of government, its powers and limitations, laid 
down in the Missouri constitution of 1820, was provided for in 
twelve articles. These articles treated "Of The Distribution 
Of Powers," "Of The Legislative Power," "Of The Executive 
Power," "Of The Judicial Power," "Of Education," "Of In- 
ternal Improvement," "Of Banks," "Of The MiUtia," "Of 
Miscellaneous Provisions," "Of The Permanent Seat of Gov- 
ernment," of the "Mode Of Amending The Constitution," and 



• Shoemaker, pp. 17f. 

• C/., supra. Chapter II. 



214 ' Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

of a "Declaration of Rights." Some of these provisions were 
not fundamental and did not properly belong in a constitu- 
tion, being rather administrative and legislative in character 
than organic. 

The constitution set forth the general principle of the 
frame of government of the new State in Article II, on "Of The 
Distribution Of Powers." This principle was that the powers 
of government should be divided into three distinct depart- 
ments. Each department was to be confided to a separate 
magistracy. No person charged with the exercise of powers 
properly belonging to one of these departments, was to exercise 
any power properly belonging to either of the others, except 
where expressly directed or permitted by the constitution. 

The conception of a separation of the powers of govern- 
ment into three distinct departments had become so deeply 
imbedded in American political ideals by 1820, that it is not 
surprising to find it inserted in the first constitution of Missouri. 
One authority has said, "the classification of governmental 
powers into three is as old as Aristotle." ^ This classification 
was given a theoretical expression by Montesquieu and Black- 
stone in the eighteenth century.^ Later it was incorporated 
and concisely expressed in a majority of the early state constitu- 
tions of the Revolutionary Period. Of these instruments the 
1780 constitution of Massachusetts is the classic example. 
Although omitted from the Articles of Confederation, this clas- 
sification received strength and authority by becoming one of 
the working principles of the National Government as set forth 
in the constitution of the United States. 

The expression given this concept in the Missouri constitu- 
tion of 1820, resembles most the language of the constitutions 
of Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana 
and Mississippi. Both the subject matter and the form of this 
article resembles closely the corresponding provision in the 
constitutions of Kentucky and Illinois.^ 

• Foster on the Constitution, I. 299. For full account see chap. III. par. 42-45. 
Also, Dunnings. "Political Theories, Ancient and Mediaeval," p. 96. The quota- 
tion given above should be somewhat limited as it is not entirely correct. 

• Story on the Constitution, I. chap. VII, pp. 388-406. Dunning, "Political 
Theories from Luther to Montesquieu," pp. 412ff. 

' Shoemaker, pp. 20f. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 215 

The legislative department took primacy over the executive 
and judicial departments in the Missouri constitution of 1820. 
This primacy found expression by placing the legislative de- 
partment first in order of arrangement, by devoting a larger 
portion of the constitution to it than to the other two depart- 
ments, and by making it more powerful than they. The legis- 
lative department was not only the strongest of the three branches 
of government both in its residuary and expressed powers and 
in its indefinite sphere of control over its two "co-ordinates," 
but it was endowed with the more important function of acting, 
under certain limitations, as the legal organization of its sover- 
eign — the people of Missouri. Occupying such prominence, 
possessed of such power, and endowed with such potentialities, 
the legislative department set forth in the Missouri constitution 
of 1820 deserves a more extended treatment than either the 
executive or the judicial department. 

The legislative power was vested in a body called the 
"General Assembly." This body was organized on the bi- 
cameral basis. It consisted of a "Senate" and a "House of 
Representatives." Perhaps no principle of our government 
has received more general acceptance in the United States than 
that of a bicameral legislature. It had long been a fundamental 
rule of political science for the English people. It was carried 
over into the colonial governments more or less generally, and, 
with the exception of Vermont, Pennsylvania and Georgia, it 
was incorporated into all the constitutions of the Revolutionary 
Period. Like in many other ways, the Articles of Confederation 
proved an exception to this idea. It received recognition, 
however, and became of more binding force by being plainly 
set forth in the United States constitution. Pennsylvania and 
Georgia soon adopted it and by 1820 only one state, Vermont, 
still retained a unicameral legislature. Having such a strong 
foundation in practice as well as in theory, its expression in 
section 1, article III of the Missouri constitution is easily ac- 
counted for.^ This section in its brevity and language recalls 
the corresponding section in the United States constitution.^ 

'Story on the Constitution, Ch. VIII. 407-422; Shoemaker, pp. 22f. 
• U. S. Const., I. 1, 



216 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

When compared with the other state constitutions, those of 
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi and South Carolina, are substantially identical with 
Missouri's on this section. The constitutions of Illinois, In- 
diana, Ohio, Tennessee and Maine, also bear a close resemblance 
to it. The constitutions of Kentucky and Delaware were prob- 
ably the most influential in its framing both as regards terms 
used and general expression. ^° 

The two houses were organized upon the general principle 
of popular representation, except that each county was to have 
at least one representative in the lower chamber. This general 
principle was that the members of both chambers should be 
apportioned according to the number of free, white, male in- 
habitants in the several districts and counties." This principle 
was applied to the house of representatives by limiting the 
maximum number of representatives to one hundred and by 
guaranteeing to each county at least one representative. The 
general assembly was commanded to apportion the number of 
representatives among the several counties at its first session 
and again in 1822, 1824 and every four years thereafter on the 
basis of the state census returns made on those years. The 
first general assembly had forty-three representatives. This 
number was gradually increased as new counties were formed 
and as population grew.^^ The principle of popular representa- 
tion was applied to the senate with only two limitations on the 
power of the general assembly. The number of senators was 
not to be less than fourteen nor more than thirty-three. Further 
when the general assembly divided the state into senatorial 
districts, no county was to be divided, and no county in one 
district was to be separated from another county in that district 
by a county lying in a different district. ^^ The general assembly 
was not restricted to districting the State for senators on certain 
years as in the case of representatives. It appears that the 



^'Shoemaker, pp. 22f. 
" Mo. Const., III. 4, 6. 
" Ibid. 
i'Mo. Const.. III. 6. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 217 

schemes of apportionment for both houses were copied from 
the Kentucky Constitution.^^ 

The tenure of members of the general assembly was elective.^* 
This was the universal rule in all the states for members of 
both houses.^^ The electors at all elections, as set forth in the 
Missouri constitution, were limited to free white male citizens 
of the United States who had attained the age of twenty-one 
years and who had resided in the state one year and in the county 
three months preceeding an election. Soldiers and sailors in 
the United States army or navy were disqualified.^' These 
qualifications and disqualifications relating to electors were 
copied verbatim from the Alabama constitution.^^ After 
January 1, 1822, all general elections were to be held biennially 
on the first Monday in August and the electors, in all cases 
except treason, felony or breach of the peace, were privileged 
from arrest in attending the elections and in going to and re- 
turning from them.^^ Special elections could be called by writ 
of the governor to fill vacancies in either house of the legislature. 

The term of representatives was two years ; and of senators, 
four years. 2° The same term for representatives obtained in 
only four states, — Illinois, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ten- 
nessee.2^ Seven states provided a four year term for senators, — 
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, 
Virginia, and Pennsylvania.^^ While the House changed every 
two years, the Senate was a continuous body. The Missouri 
constitution provided that at the first session of the general 
assembly the senators should be divided by lot into two classes. 
One class was to serve two years, the other four years, so that 



>« Shoemaker, pp. 28, 31. 

'•Afo. Const., III. 2. 5. 

'• Shoemaker, p. 24. 

" Mo. Const., III. 10. 

^'Shoemaker, pp. 35f. 

^* Mo. Const., III. 8, 9; Shoemaker, pp. 33f. These provisions, which were 
really political limitations on the power of the general assembly, were taken from 
the constitution of Illinois. 

"Mo. Const., III. 2, 5. 

" Shoemaker, pp. 24f. A one year term was the rule in the other states. 

"Ibid., p. 29. Maryland provided for a Ave year term; four states, for a 
three year term; two states, for a two year term; and the remaining states for a 
one year term. 



218 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

one half of the senators would be chosen every second year.^^ 
This provision was probably taken from the Illinois constitution.^* 

Compared with other states, Missouri prescribed high 
qualifications for her legislators. The members of the House 
had to possess or comply with five requisites. First, they 
must have attained the age of twenty-four years. The consti- 
tutions of Delaware and Kentucky alone contained the same 
age qualification, and only one State constitution, that of Ohio, 
provided a higher one.^^ Second, they must be "free white 
male citizens of the United States." This qualification was set 
forth expressly only in the constitution of Alabama and Louis- 
iana, and impliedly in the constitution of Kentucky. However, 
the term "free white male" was quite general in practice.'^^ 
Third, they must have resided in the State two years before 
their election. This was followed in only five states, — Alabama, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina." Fourth, 
they must have resided in the county which they represented 
one year before their election. This county residence qualifi- 
cation was widespread in the southern states.^^ Fifth, they 
must have paid a state or county tax. This qualification was 
followed in the constitutions of only three states, — Illinois, 
Indiana and Ohio.^^ It seems that the constitutions of Kentucky 
and Illinois were the models used for defining the qualifications 
of representatives. 

The qualifications for senators were similar to those for 
representatives. The age and state residence qualifications 
were, however, higher for the former. Senators were required 
to be at least thirty years of age and to have resided in the state 
at least four years preceding their election. The constitutions 
of Ohio, South Carolina, and the United States, alone set forth 
such a high age qualification for senators, and the state residence 
qualification was this high in only three states, — Louisiana, Mis- 



" Mo. Const., III. 7. 

" Shoemaker, p. 32. 

"Mo. Const., III. 3: Shoemaker, pp. 25fl. 

•• Ibid. 

" Ibid. 

" Ibid. 

•• Ibid. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 219 

sissippi and Pennsylvania. It is probable that the constitutions 
that exerted the most influence in defining the qualifications for 
senators, were those of Kentucky, Illinois, Louisana and the 
United States.'" Missouri in prescribing qualifications for her 
law-makers followed those states that had prescribed high 
requisites except as regards the possession of wealth. 

The disqualifications that applied to members of the general 
assembly were equally as numerous and, with one exception, 
as advanced as were the qualifications. In general no person 
was eligible to either house who held a lucrative ofifice under the 
United States, the State, or the county. Militia officers, jus- 
tices of the peace, and postmasters were excepted from this 
general rule.'^ Nearly all the state constitutions followed this 
general rule.'- Further, no collector of public money, or his 
deputy, was eligible to either house or to any ofifice of profit or 
trust, until he had made an accurate and honest settlement of 
such money.'' About half of the state constitutions had a 
similar provision.'"* Priests and preachers were also ineligible 
to seats in the general assembly and to all ofifices of profit under 
the State, except the ofifice of justice of the peace.'^ The con- 
stitution of Kentucky probably exerted the greatest influence 
in the framing of this provision.'^ The general assembly was 
authorized to also exclude from all public state ofifices and from 
the right of suffrage, all persons convicted of bribery, perjury 
or other infamous crime.'^ The disqualification on account of 
crime was taken from either the Illinois or Kentucky constitu- 



" Mo. Const., III. 5; Shoemaker, pp. 29f. 

" Mo. Const.. III. 11. 

" Shoemaker, p. 37. 

"Mo. Const., III. 12. 

" Shoemaker, p. 37. 

"Mo. Const., III. 13. 

•• Shoemaker, pp. 38f. This disqualification resting on clergymen was first 
set forth in the constitution of Virginia of 1776. The author of that document 
was Thomas Jefferson. He purposely set this limitation on the political activity 
of ecclesiastics. This was a result partly of his ideas on religion as gathered 
from French philosophy and partly on account of the peculiar position occupied 
by the clergy in Virginia. The disqualification as expressed in the Virginia con- 
stitution excepted no ofilce. This provision was probably copied from the Vir- 
ginia constitution by the people of Kentucky when they framed their fundamental 
law but they modified it so as to except the ofiBce of justice of the peace. In this 
latter form Missouri copied it. 

" Mo. Const., III. 14. 15. 



220 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

tion.'^ The disqualification for bribery approached nearest to 
similar provisions in the constitutions of Connecticut and Dela- 
ware. Few if any of the states went as far as did Missouri in 
including so severe a corrupt practices act in their constitu- 
tions.^^ Finally no member of the general assembly, during 
his term of ofifice, was qualified to be appointed to any civil 
state ofifice, which had been created or the emolument of which 
had been increased during his term of office, except to such 
offices as were elective.'*" This disqualification resting on sen- 
ators and representatives for certain offices was rather wide- 
spread among the states.^^ 

The different qualifications and disqualifications for legis- 
lators set forth in the Missouri constitution, reveal in a degree 
the advanced character of that organic law. The highest 
requisites for eligibility in other states consistent with a demo- 
cratic government, were incorporated, and the strictest pro- 
visions in other constitutions regarding ineligibility were also 
adopted. Ability and honesty were the qualities sought in 
representatives and senators. 

The privileges of senators and representatives consisted of 
immunity from arrest, except in cases of treason, felony or breach 
of the peace, during the session of the general assembly and for 
fifteen days before and after each session. They were further 
exempted from questioning in any other place for any speech 
or debate made in either house.^ The constitutions of a num- 
ber of the states contained provisions similar to these. The 
United States constitution probably served as a pattern for all 
in this respect.'*^ Closely associated with the privileges of mem- 
bers was their compensation. The amount of compensation was 
not determined by the constitution. It was left under the control 
of the legislature, but no increase was to take effect during the 
session such increase had been made.'*'* Many of the states at 
that time followed the present rule of limiting the salary of its 

•• Shoemaker, p. 39. 
"Ibid., p. 40. 
<• Mo. Const., III. 16. 
" Shoemaker, p. 41. 
" Mo. Const., III. 23. 
«» Shoemaker, pp. 46f. 
** Mo. Const.. III. 24. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 221 

representatives and senators. Missouri patterned her pro- 
vision on this subject after the constitutions of Alabama, Dela- 
ware and Mississippi.'*^ 

It was provided that the salary of the lieutenant governor, 
or president of the senate pro tempore, while presiding in the 
senate, should be the same as was allowed the speaker of the 
house of representatives.^^ The amount of such compensation 
was again left under the control of the general assembly. The 
constitution of Kentucky was probably the pattern followed 
in this respect.^' 

The regular sessions of the general assembly were biennial 
on even years. The first regular session was to be on the third 
Monday of September, 1820; the next on the first Monday of 
November, 1821 ; the next on the first Monday of November, 1822 ; 
and thereafter once in every two years on the first Monday in 
November. Power was, however, given the legislature to ap- 
point a different day. In all the states but two, Illinois and 
Tennessee, the legislatures met in annual sessions. Missouri 
followed these two states in adopting biennial meetings.*^ 
Called or extra sessions were also provided for. On extra- 
ordinary occasions the governor was given power to convene 
the general assembly in session by proclamation. The pur- 
poses of the session were to be set forth in the proclamation. 
This was part of the legislative powers of the governor and was 
possessed by the chief executives in fourteen states.^^ Hasty 
adjournment on the part of one house was guarded against by 
providing that neither house should, without the consent of the 
other, adjourn for more than two days at any one time, nor to 
any other place than to that in which the two houses had been 
sitting. Over half of the states had similar provisions regarding 
adjournment.^'' 

The purely internal organization of the general assembly 
was determined partly by the constitution and was left partly 



" Shoemaker, p. 47. 

"Mo. Const., IV. 18. 

•' Shoemaker, p. 75. 

" Mo. Const., III. 33; Shoemaker, p. 56. 

"Mo. Const., IV. 7; Shoemaker, p. 67. 

** Mo. Const., III. 20; Shoemaker, p. 45. 



222 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

to the two houses. Each house was given the power to judge 
of the quaUfications and elections of its own members and to 
appoint its own officers, except that the lieutenant governor 
by virtue of his office was president of the senate. ^^ The pre- 
siding officer of the senate next in rank was the president pro 
tempore, who was elected by that body. The presiding officer 
of the house was the speaker, who was also elected.^^ All these 
officers, their names and duties, are met with in most of the 
state constitutions of that day. The constitution prescribed 
that a majority of each house should constitute a quorum to 
do business, but a smaller number might adjourn from day to 
day and might compel the attendance of absent members.^' 
A number of state constitutions laid down almost identical 
rules.^'* Each house was given power to determine the rules 
of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, 
and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members 
elected, expel a member; but no member should be expelled a 
second time for the same cause. Each house was required to 
publish a journal of its proceedings, except such parts as might, 
in their opinion, require secrecy, and the yeas and nays on any 
question were to be entered on the journal at the desire of any 
two members.^* Most of these regulations were set forth in 
a majority of the other state constitutions, and it is impossible 
to determine which one exerted the most influence in the framing 
of the Missouri constitution.^^ The constitution further provided 
that the doors of each house, and of committees of the whole, 
should be kept open, except in cases that might require secrecy. 
This provision regarding publicity of the legislature's proceed- 
ings was probably copied from the Illinois constitution.^^ Finally, 
each house was given the power to punish, by a fine not exceeding 
three hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding forty- 
eight hours for one offense, any person not a member for dis- 



*^ Mo. Const., III. 17; IV. 15. This power of the state legislatures over th'i 
appointment of their officers was in general use over the nation. r 

" Mu. Const., IV. 18. 
"Mo. Const., III. 17. 
•« Shoemaker, p. 42. 
"Mo. Const., III. 18. 
»• Shoemaker, pp. 42f. 
*^ Mo. Const., III. 19; Shoemaker, p. 43 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 223 

orderly or contemptuous behavior in the presence of and during 
the session of that house.^^ In this last respect the Missouri 
constitution went further than any other. No other state 
constitution expressly granted to the legislature the power to 
"fine" those, not members, for contempt of authority of that 
body. 

The essential features of legislative process were laid down 
in the constitution. It was provided that bills might originate 
in either house and might be altered, amended or rejected, by 
the other house. Every bill was to be read on three different 
days in each house unless two-thirds of the house where the bill 
was pending dispensed with this rule. Having passed both 
houses, every bill was to be signed by the speaker of the house 
of representatives and by the president of the senate.^^ Before 
becoming a law, every bill must be presented to the governor 
for his approbation. If he signed it, it became a law. If he 
did not approve it, he was to return it together with his ob- 
jections to the house of its inception. This house was to enter 
his objections on its journal and then proceed to reconsider the 
bill. If on a recorded aye and nay vote, a majority of the 
members elected to each house, voting separately, agreed to 
pass the bill over the governor's veto, it was to become a law. 
Further, if the governor failed to return a bill within ten days 
(Sunday excepted) after it had been presented to him, the bill 
was to become a law unless the general assembly had adjourned 
in the meantime.^" Every joint resolution of the general as- 
sembly, except in cases of adjournment, was also to be presented 
to the governor, and was subject to the same regulations as 
obtained in the case of a bill.®^ Finally it was provided that 
the style of the laws of the State should be: "Be it enacted 
by the general assembly of the state of Missouri." ^^ These 
essential features of legislative process, many of which obtained 



•• Mo. Const., III. 19; Shoemaker, pp. 43f. 

•»Mo. Const., III. 21. 

"Mo. Const., IV. 10. 

•' Mo. Const., IV. 11; Shoemaker, pp. 70f. 

•' Mo. Const., III. 36. An identical provision was contained In the consti- 
tutions of Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Tennessee, and Vermont. (Shoemaker, 
p. 58.) 



224 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

in other states, were probably copied from the constitutions of 
Illinois and Kentucky." 

The powers of the general assembly were broad. They 
embraced general legislative, delegated legislative, executive 
and judicial powers. The general legislative power or general 
law-making power was vested in the general assembly by the 
first section of article three of the constitution. This power 
was and still is vested in the legislature in every state. The 
delegated legislative powers of the general assembly consisted 
in the main of specific grants of power to legislate over certain 
subjects. Some of these grants were set forth in the article 
dealing with the legislature and others in separate articles. 

The general assembly was commanded to direct, by law, 
in what manner, and in what courts, suits could be brought 
against the State.®"* Only four state constitutions expressly 
gave this power to the legislature.®^ The general assembly 
was commanded to pass laws to prevent free negroes and mu- 
lattoes from coming to and settling in Missouri; and to oblige 
slave-owners to treat their slaves humanely.®® Further re- 
garding slavery, the general assembly was given power to pass 
laws to prohibit the introduction of any slave who had com- 
mitted a high crime in another state; to prohibit the introduction 
of any slave for the purpose of speculation or as an article of 
trade or merchandise; to prohibit the introduction of a slave, 
or a slave's offspring, that had been illegally imported into the 
United States; and to permit slave-owners to emancipate their 
slaves, saving the rights of creditors, provided the emancipators 
gave security that the emancipated slaves would not become 
public charges.®^ These provisions relating to slavery legisla- 
tion, except the free negro and mulatto clause, were probably 
copied from the constitution of Alabama. The free negro 
clause was unique among constitutional provisions of that day, 



•» Shoemaker, pp. 45, 70. 

«* Mo. Const., III. 25. 

" Shoemaker, p. 48. The four states were Alabama, Delaware. Kentucky, 
and Mississippi. Tennessee limited this right of bringing suits against the state 
to the citizens of Tennessee. 

**Mo. Const., III. 26. 

•' Ibid. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 225 

it was also remarkable for the great discord it later caused in 
Congress during the winter of 1820-1821.*^ Power was given 
the general assembly to change the tenure of the sheriff and 
coroner.®' About half the states followed the elective tenure 
principle for these local officers, and half the appointive tenure.^" 
The duties of the attorney general were placed under the regula- 
tion of the legislature. This was the rule in a majority of the 
states. ^^ 

The delegated legislative powers of the general assembly 
over the judiciary of the State were important. These powers 
were purely legislative and did not involve judicial powers. 
One of the most important of this class of powers was that of 
regulating, under certain constitutional restrictions, the juris- 
diction of the courts. This principle of judicial regulation by 
the legislature was followed by a number of the states. The 
form in which it was incorporated in the Missouri constitution 
shows the influence of the constitutions of Alabama, Delaware 
and Kentucky. ^2 Another important class of legislative powers 
over the judiciary was that of districting the State and of 
determining the place and time, for sessions of the courts. 
These last powers were subject to few restrictions. They seem 
to have been copied from the constitutions of Alabama, Delaware 
and Louisiana." The general assembly was also empowered 
to establish inferior courts. No restriction was placed on this 
power. In practically all the states the legislature was ex- 
pressly given this power.''* 

The delegated legislative powers of the general assembly 
also included important provisions relating to education, in- 
ternal improvement, banks, the permanent seat of government, 
and the mode of amending the constitution. Each of these 
commanded a separate article. 

The general assembly was given practically unlimited 
control over the education of the State. Schools were to be 



•» Shoemaker, p. 50. 

•• Mo. Const., IV. 23. 

^* Shoemaker, p. 80. 

" Mo. Const., V. 18; Shoemaker, p. 99. 

"Afo. Const., V. 2, 6. 10. 11, 17; Shoemaker, pp. 87ff, 91ff. 98f. 

^> Mo. Const., V. 5, 6, 7. 9, 17; Shoemaker, pp. 88ff., 91. 98f. 

^* Mo. Const.. V. 1; Shoemaker, p. 86. 

M S— 15 



226 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

encouraged and the national public school lands in each township 
were to be preserved for their use. One public school or more 
was to be established in each township as soon as practicable, 
where education was to be free to the poor. A state university 
was to be established and supported from the proceeds of a fund 
derived principally from the seminary lands granted by the United 
States. The purpose of this university was for the promotion 
of literature, and of the arts and science. Both the lands and 
the funds and endowments of the university were under the 
control of the general assembly and were to be safeguarded for 
the use and benefit of that institution. These educational 
provisions were related to those in other constitutions. A ma- 
jority of the states had some constitutional provisions relating 
to education. These provisions differed greatly. The older 
states naturally said nothing of United States school lands and 
few said anything regarding a state university. In many of 
the newly created states such provisions were not placed in 
the constitutions but in the enabling act of Congress or in the 
state's acceptance of same. The state constitutions that seem 
to have been the most influential in the framing of the Missouri 
educational provisions, were those of Alabama and Indiana — 
both being practically identical with the Missouri constitution. ''^ 

Internal improvements were to be encouraged by the state 
government. The power of the general assembly in this field 
was practically unlimited. One of its duties was to ascertain 
the most proper objects of both road and water improvements. 
The general assembly was also directed to make an economic 
and systematic application of the funds appropriated for these 
purposes. The constitution of Alabama contained provisions 
practically identical with these. ^^ 

The delegated power of the general assembly over the es-A 
tablishing of a state bank was restricted. A conservative state" 
banking policy was adopted. The constitution of only two 
states, Alabama and Indiana, had similar provisions on this 
subject and neither so safeguarded the state's finances as did 



^' Mo. Const., VI.; Shoemaker, pp. 103ff. 
^> Mo. Const., VII.; Shoemaker, p. 106. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 227 

Missouri.''^ The general assembly of Missouri was given power 
to incorporate only one banking company to be in operation 
at the same time. The general assembly could establish not 
exceeding fiv^e branches for this state bank and only one branch 
could be established at any one session of the general assembly. 
The capital stock of the state bank was not to exceed five mil- 
lions of dollars, at least one-half of which was to be reserved 
for the use of the State. ''^ 

A certain amount of delegated legislative power relating 
to the militia was granted the general assembly. It was given 
power to change the tenure of those officers of the militia, ex- 
cepting the officers of the staff, who were not appointed by the 
governor. The nearest approach to such a provision was a 
section in the constitutions of Tennessee and Indiana.^' Most 
of the states, however, had similar provisions on this subject. 

The authority of the general assembly over the permanent 
seat of government was set forth in a separate article, con- 
sisting of four sections. The general assembly, at its first ses- 
sion, was authorized to appoint five commissioners, one from 
each extreme part of the State and one from the center, for the 
purpose of selecting a place for the permanent seat of govern- 
ment. The duty of these commissioners was to select four 
sections of the land of the United States that had not been ex- 
posed to public sale. If the commissioners decided that the 
four sections of United States land so selected were not suitable, 
they were empowered to select such other place as they did re- 
gard would be proper, and they were to report on the second loca- 
tion at the time of their report on the first. No place was to be 
selected, however, that was not situated on the Missouri River 
and was not within forty miles of the mouth of the Osage River. 
The concurrence of at least three of the commissioners was neces- 
sary for all decisions made by them. To the general assembly 
was given the power of making final decision. If the latter 
body accepted the first location the commissioners were author- 
ized to lay out a town thereon under the direction of the general 
assembly; if the general assembly accepted the second location, 

" Shoemaker, pp. lOTflf. 

"Afo. Const., VIII. 

^* Shoemaker, p. liO; Mo. Const. IX. 



228 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

the general assembly was empowered to authorize the commis- 
sioners to purchase any quantity of land, not exceeding six 
hundred and forty acres, for this purpose. The place selected was 
to be the permanent seat of government of Missouri from and 
after October 1, 1826. The constitution of no other state con- 
tained similar provisions on this subject. The constitutions of 
Alabama, Kentucky and Louisiana did, however, expressly 
provide that the seat of government could be changed by the 
legislature. The bitter fight in the Missouri convention over 
this question was probably the main reason for these detailed 
clauses in the constitution.^" 

The great legislative power of proposing and adopting 
amendments to the constitution was also expressly delegated 
to the general assembly. That body, on a two-thirds vote of 
each house, could propose amendments without restriction. 
Such proposed amendments were then to be published three 
different times in Missouri, at least twelve months before the 
next general election. At the first session of the general as- 
sembly after such general election, that body, on a two-thirds 
aye and nay vote of each house, was given power to adopt any 
proposed amendments or to reject them. It was provided that 
both in proposing and ratifying amendments they should be 
read on three several days in each house. Of the twenty-three 
state constitutions of that day all except five, New Jersey, 
New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia, pro- 
vided some method of amendment. In fourteen of these the 
legislature on its own initiative proposed the question of amend- 
ment. The vote required differed from a majority of one house, 
as in Connecticut, to a two-thirds vote of both houses. No 
general rule governed the manner of ratification. Four states, 
Delaware, Georgia, Maryland and South Carolina, confided 
this power in the legislature alone after an intervening election 
had taken place; two, Alabama and Connecticut, in that body 
together with a popular vote. The larger number, Illinois 
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Ohio, 
and Tennessee, provided for the people voting on a convention,^ 
which body had all powers of amending and revising the con<j 



** Mo. Const., XI.; Shoemaker, pp. 113ff. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 229 

stitution. One state, New Hampshire, provided for a convention 
and for ratification by the people; another, Maine, ratification 
by a popular vote; and one, Vermont, left ratification to the 
legislature whose members were to be instructed. Some states 
provided so difficult a process as to render amendment im- 
probable, and in fact some state constitutions of that time were 
never altered but were replaced with new ones. Maryland 
alone provided in her constitution an easier amendment clause 
than Missouri.®^ 

The executive power of the general assembly was broad if 
interpreted in connection with its legislative powers, and 
limited if considered strictly from the specific executive powers 
granted. Even from the latter viewpoint, however, these 
powers were greater and wider in scope than those retained 
today by the legislature. The constitution set forth the general 
rules that the appointment of all officers, not otherwise directed 
by it, should be made in such manner as might be prescribed 
by law. ^2 This by implication placed a great general executive 
power in the hands of the general assembly and, in a less degree, 
the governor, that in many states was expressly given to the 
governor alone. This general rule obtained in the constitu- 
tions of nine states, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Indiana, Mississippi and 
Ohio. In the other states either such power of appointment 
was given to the governor or no express mention was made 
regarding it.^ The constitution, by way of regulation, pro- 
vided that when any officer should have been appointed by the 
joint vote of both houses, or by the separate vote of either house, 
the votes should be publicly given viva voce, and entered on the 
journals; the whole list of members should be called; and the 
names of absentees should be noted and published with the 
journal. The constitutions of only three states, Alabama, 
Kentucky and Pennsylvania, contained provisions similar to 
these.** In the general assembly was vested the power of 



•' Mo. Const., XII.; Shoemaker, pp. 117f. 

"Mo. Const., III. 32. 

" Shoemaker, pp. 54f. 

** Mo. Const., III. 22; Shoemaker, p. 22. 



230 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

appointing, by a joint vote of both houses, the state treasurer. 
This was the general rule in nearly all the states.*^ These 
executive powers were vested jointly in the senate and the 
governor. The appointment of the state auditor, attorney 
general, and the secretary of state was placed in the hands of 
the governor acting "by and with the advice and consent of 
the senate." In the three states that provided for an auditor, 
his tenure was under the power of the general assembly ; in those 
states that provided for an attorney general, of which Alabama, 
Kentucky and Mississippi were the models for Missouri, the 
general rule was the appointive tenure; and in the eighteen 
states that provided for a secretary of state, seven — Delaware, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and 
Tennessee — made his tenure appointive by the governor, and 
the remaining states made it appointive by the general as- 
sembly or elective by the people. ^^ 

The judicial power of the general assembly extended to 
three subjects — impeachments, addresses for the removal of 
certain officials, and two classes of contested elections. The 
constitution provided that all state officials and judges should 
be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office; but 
that judgment in such case should not extend farther than 
removal from office and disqualification to hold any state office. 
The party impeached, whether convicted or acquitted, was 
liable to be indicted, tried and punished according to law. The 
house of representatives was given the sole power of impeach- 
ment. All impeachments were to be tried by the senate, and 
when sitting for that purpose, the senators were to be on oath to 
do justice according to law and evidence. When the governor 
was tried, the presiding judge of the supreme court was to pre- 
side. No person was to be convicted without the concurrence 
of two-thirds of all the senators present. The majority of 
state constitutions had similar provisions on this subject. The 
constitution of the United States or of Connecticut was probably 
the pattern followed by Missouri.^' The general assembly was 



*'Mo. Const.. III. 31; Shoemaker, p. 54. 

•• Mo. Const., IV. 12, 21; V. 18; Shoemaker, pp. 71. 77f, 99. 

"Mo. Const., III. 29, 30; Shoemaker, pp. 52f. 



I 

i 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 231 

given power to remove supreme and circuit court judges and 
the chancellor from office on the address of two-thirds of each 
house to the governor for that purpose. Each house was to 
state in its journal the cause of the removal and give notice of 
same to the accused. The judge or chancellor whose removal 
was requested was given the right to be heard in his defense 
according to law, but no judicial officer was to be removed in 
this manner if he might have been impeached. A majority of 
the states provided for removal of judges in this manner. The 
constitution of Illinois was the model followed by Missouri. ^^ 
Finally the judicial power of the general assembly extended to 
deciding, by a joint vote of both houses, contested elections of 
governor and lieutenant governor. This principle was followed 
by ten states, of which Illinois was the model for Missouri. ^^ 
The general assembly by a joint vote of both houses, was also 
given power to decide between those candidates for governor 
that had polled the highest votes, who should be governor in case 
two or more persons had received an equal number of votes 
and a higher number than any other person. ^° 

The limitations placed on the general assembly fall naturally 
into two classes — expressed and implied. The latter included 
all those grants of power made to the executive or judicial 
departments and those powers and regulations that pertained 
in a specific or restrictive sense to the legislative department. 
Powers granted to the first two departments were by implication 
restrictions on the legislature, since by virtue of the state legis- 
lature's residuary powers such executive or judicial powers 
would otherwise have been under the control of the legislature. 
Further, those powers of the legislature that were granted in a 
specific manner and those regulating provisions governing the 
organization and procedure of the legislature, were by implica- 
tion limitations or probibitions on that body from exercising 
such powers or following such provisions in different manner. 
Since all these implied limitations on the general assembly 
naturally make their appearance in considering the three de- 



" Mo. Const.. V. 16; Shoemaker, pp. 97f. 
•• Mo. Const.. IV. 20; Shoemaker, pp. 76f. 
•• Mo. Const., IV. 3. 



232 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

partments, they need not be enumerated in a separate dis- 
cussion.^^ 

The expressed limitations on the general assembly included 
a variety of subjects. Most of these were set forth in a separate 
article called "Declaration of Rights," the majority of the 
others were placed in the article on the legislative power. The 
latter will be considered first. 

One of the most important class of limitations on the 
general assembly related to slaves. Certain implied, perhaps 
expressed limitations were set forth in those slavery provisions 
that made it commandatory on the legislature to pass certain 
slave laws. Since these have been considered under the legis- 
lative powers of the general assembly they will not receive 
double treatment. Some other slavery limitations were, how- 
ever, set forth that were without a doubt, expressed ones. 

The general assembly was prohibited from passing laws 
for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their 
owners, or without paying them, before such emancipation, 
a full equivalent for such slaves. It was prohibited from pass- 
ing laws to prevent bona fide immigrants to Missouri, or actual 
settlers therein, from bringing from any of the states or ter- 
ritories, such persons as were there deemed slaves, so long as 
such persons were regarded slaves in this State. The con- 
stitutions of Alabama, Kentucky and Mississippi had similar 
limitations regarding slavery legislation. ^^ Other slavery limi- 
tations that were binding on the legislature and also on the other 
two departments of government were these: in criminal prose- 
cutions, slaves were guaranteed trial by jury; in capital offenses, 
a convicted slave was to suffer the same punishment as would 
apply to white persons under the same circumstances; counsel 
was to be assigned for the defense of slaves in the courts; any 
person who should maliciously deprive of life or dismember a 
slave, was to sufifer such punishment as would be inflicted for a 
like offense if committed on a free white person. No other 
state constitution went so far in protecting the rights of the 



•' It was not thought necessary in a work of this character to consider those 
implied limitations on the legislature that arise from judicial interpretation. 
" Mo. Const., III. 26; Shoemaker, pp. 49f. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 233 

slave as this one. In only three states, Alabama, Kentucky, 
and Mississippi, did the constitution expressly give protection 
to a slave when prosecuted for crime. These three states and 
Georgia also regarded high crimes against slaves in the same 
light as though against free whites.^^ 

The general assembly was limited in its power to establish 
new counties. No county then established was to be reduced, 
by the establishment of new counties, to less than twenty miles 
square, nor was any new county to be formed that contained 
less than four hundred square miles. The constitution of Ohio 
alone contained an identical provision; a similar provision was, 
however, included in the constitutions of Alabama, Indiana, 
Mississippi and Tennessee.^* 

A limitation was placed on the general assembly under a 
power granted it regarding the revision of the laws. It was 
provided that a complete revision of all the laws of the state 
was to be made within five years after the adoption of the 
constitution and subsequent revisions at the end of every ten 
years. The constitution of only one state, Alabama, contained 
a similar provision. ^^ 

The general assembly was prohibited from interfering with 
the primary disposal of United States soil or with any regulation 
of Congress for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide 
purchasers. It was further prohibited from imposing a tax on 
lands the property of the United States or from placing a higher 
tax on lands in Missouri owned by non-residents than on lands 
owned by residents. And the constitution, accepting and com- 
plying with the Enabling Act, declared the State had concurrent 
jurisdiction on the Mississippi River or any other river as far 
as such river or rivers formed part of its boundary and pro- 
hibited the general assembly from levying any tax, duty, impost 
or toll, on such streams or on other navigable streams tributary 
to the Mississippi River. No state constitution contained 
provisions identical with these. The nearest approach was in 
the constitution of Tennessee. However, in most of the en- 



< Mo. Const.. III. 27. 28; Shoemaker, pp. 50f. 
^ Mo. Const., III. 34; Shoemaker, pp. 56f. 
' Mo. Const., III. 35; Shoemaker, pp. 57f. 



234 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

abling acts of the western states, similar provisions were set 
forth. Their incorporation in these acts probably accounts 
for their omission in the state constitutions.^^ 

The limitations on the general assembly that were included 
in the "Declaration of Rights" were also limitations or implied 
prohibitions on the other two departments. They were, how- 
ever, of special force with reference to the general assembly 
since they dealt largely with subjects that were intended to be 
protected from legislative alteration. The "Declaration of 
Rights" included those provisions that guarded the rights and 
privileges of individuals. It dealt with those fundamental 
principles of individual liberty and political rights, many of 
which had their inception, or were supposed to have had, in 
the Magna Charta. Originally purposed to guard the individual 
against executive encroachments, their scope was broadened 
to act as a safeguard against all governmental impositions and 
especially against legislative action. Having a common origin 
in English history and a similar development in American, the 
provisions of the various "Bills of Rights," "Declaration of 
Rights" and "General Provisions," of the different states, 
presented in 1820 and still present today a remarkable uni- 
formity of purpose and wording. All the states in 1820, except 
New Jersey and New York, provided for a bill of rights in their 
constitutions. In nine states it was called a "Declaration of 
Rights," in two "Bill of Rights," in one "General Provisions," 
and in the others had no name but was placed under a separate 
article in the constitution. 

The Missouri "Declaration of Rights" consisted of a short 
preamble and twenty-two sections. Since these sections were 
as concisely and as clearly stated as possible in the constitution, 
an exposition of all of them is unnecessary. The general prin- 
ciples enunciated were these: that all political power was vested 
in and derived from the people; that the power of regulating the 
government and of altering the constitution belonged to the 
people; that the people had a right to assemble and petition the 
government for redress of grievances; that they also had the 
right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of their State ; that 



"Mo. Const., X.; Shoemaker, pp. lllf. 



4 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 235 

religious equality and freedom of concience were not to be dis- 
turbed; no religious corporation was to be established; that all 
elections were to be free and equal ; that the courts should be open 
to all ; that private property ought not to be taken for public use 
without just compensation; that the right of trial by jury and 
the ordinary process of legal procedure should remain inviolate; 
that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should not be 
suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion ; that excessive 
bail should not be required, or excessive fines imposed, or cruel 
punishments inflicted; that unreasonable searches and seizures 
of person or property were prohibited; that no person could be 
attainted of treason or felony by the general assembly; that no 
conviction should work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate ; 
that the freedom of speech and the press should not be infringed ; 
that no ex post facto law should be passed ; that no debtor should 
be imprisoned for his debts if he had surrendered his property 
according to law; that no priest or preacher should be forced 
to bear arms; that all property subject to taxation should be 
taxed according to its value; that no title of nobility should be 
granted; that emigration from the State should not be pro- 
hibited; that the military was subordinate to the civil power; 
that no soldier should in times of peace be quartered in any house 
without the consent of the owner; and that no appropriation 
for the army should be made for a longer period than two years. 
The only provision of the foregoing that was not included in 
at least half a dozen other state constitutions was the one 
relating to taxation. The constitutions of only three other 
states, Alabama, IlHnois and Maryland, had a similar provision. ^^ 
The executive department, provided for in the Missouri 
constitution of 1820, was composed of the governor, lieutenant- 
governor, adjutant general, auditor, secretary of state, and 
treasurer. These officers and all other state officers, both 
civil and military, were required, before entering on their 
duties, to take an oath to support the State and National con- 
stitutions and to demean themselves faithfully in office. The 
constitutions of Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Indiana, 
Mississippi and Ohio contained similar provisions. All of these 



"Mo. Const., XIII.; Shoemaker, pp. 119-132. 



236 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

constitutions were of the nineteenth century. No constitution 
of the eighteenth century required a state officer to take an 
oath to support the United States constitution but practically 
all required an oath to support the state constitution. Ohio 
was the first state to start this and with the single exception of 
Louisiana, it was followed by all the other states that framed 
constitutions between 1802 and 1820.^^ 

The supreme executive power was vested in a chief magis- 
trate styled "The Governor of the state of Missouri." In 
providing for a single head form of a chief executive Missouri 
followed the general rule that obtained among the states.^* 

The tenure of the governor was elective by a plurality 
vote of the qualified electors. The manner and time of his 
election were the same as obtained for representatives. When 
two or more persons received an equal number of votes, and a 
higher number than any other person, the election was to be 
decided between them by a joint vote of both houses of the gen- 
eral assembly at their next session. Eleven state constitutions 
contained similar provisions. Five other states, Maine, Mas- 
sachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut, pro- 
vided for an election by an absolute majority; while six other 
states, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, South 
Carolina and Virginia, still retained the old method of appoint- 
ment by the legislature; and one, Louisiana, combined the elec- 
tion method by the people with appointment by the legislature.^"" 

The term of the governor was four years and he was in- 
eligible for the next four years after the end of his term of 
service. The first state to provide a similar term was Kentucky, 
which was probably influenced by the United States constitu- 
tion. This was followed by Louisiana, Illinois and Missouri. 
Ten states still held to the early rule of a one year term, six to 
a two year term, and four to a three year term.^°^ 

The qualifications of the governor embraced age, citizen- 
ship, and residence requisites. He was required to be at least 



»* Mo. Const., III. 32; Shoemaker, pp. 54f. 
"Mo. Const., IV. 1; Shoemaker, p. 61. 
i" Mo. Const., IV. 3; Shoemaker, pp. 63f. 
>•' Mo. Const., IV. 3; Shoemaker, pp. 63f. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 237 

thirty-five years of age. This was a high age quahfication. At 
that time the constitutions of Kentucky, Louisiana and the 
United States alone provided for the same. A majority of the 
states placed the age minimum at thirty years; two states, 
Maryland and Tennessee, at twenty-five years; and six states, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia 
and Vermont, had no provision on this point. It was further 
required that the governor be a natural born citizen of the 
United States, or a citizen at the adoption of the United States 
constitution, or "an inhabitant of that part of Louisiana included 
in the state of Missouri at the time of the session thereof from 
France to the United States." This was also a high qualifi- 
cation. Besides the United States constitution, from which 
this provision was obviously patterned, the constitutions of 
Alabama, Illinois and Maine alone made natural or native 
citizenship of the United States a necessary requisite. Only 
seven other states, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Mississippi and Ohio, made any kind of United 
States citizenship a requisite. Finally the governor must have 
resided in the State for at least four years next before his election. 
Eighteen of the states required a state residence qualification, 
varying from ten years in South Carolina to two years in Illinois. 
Four states, Alabama, Ohio, Tennessee and Vermont, provided 
a four year state residence.^"^ 

The compensation of the governor was under the control 
of the general assembly with two restrictions on this control, 
the salary of the governor was not to be increased or diminished 
during the governor's continuance in office and it was not to 
be less than two thousand dollars a year. Eighteen states 
made some mention in their constitutions of the compensation 
of the governor. In no state constitution, however, was a 
minimum amount mentioned. In fact one state, Tennessee, 
placed the maximum salary at only seven hundred and fifty 
dollars. In no state was there such a liberal provision in the 
constitution relating to the salary of the governor.^"^ 



'"A/o. Const., IV. 2; Shoemaker, pp. 61ff. 
>"Afo. Const., IV. 13; Shoemaker, pp. 71f. 



238 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

The succession to the office of governor was set forth in 
detail. When the office became vacant by death, resignation, 
absence from the State, removal from office, refusal to qualify, 
impeachment or otherwise, the lieutenant governor, or, in case 
of like disability on his part, the president pro tempore of the 
senate, or, if there was no president pro tempore of the senate, 
the speaker of the house of representatives, was authorized to 
possess all the powers and receive the same compensation as the 
governor, until such vacancy was filled by a new or the old 
governor. When the office of governor became permanently 
vacant, the person temporarily filling that office was commanded 
to cause an election to be held to fill such vacancy, giving three 
months notice thereof. The person elected was not rendered 
ineligible to succeed himself. If, however, the vacancy happened 
within eighteen months of the end of the term, no election was 
to be held. The succession to the governorship was similarly 
provided for in most of the states. But only two states, Alabama 
and Illinois, had provisions in their constitutions similar to the 
foregoing provision calling for a separate election to fill such 
vacancy. ^°* 

The powers and duties of the governor fall naturally into 
four classes — executive and civil administrative functions, 
military, legislative and judicial. These powers and duties 
were specifically set forth and were not, as in some of the cases 
of the general assembly, possessed through residuary juris- 
diction. 

The executive and civil administrative functions of the 
governor were few but important. He was directed to dis- 
tribute the laws and to see that they were faithfully executed. 
He was further empowered to be a conservator of the peace 
throughout the State. These general executive powers of the 
governor were granted him in a majority of the states. ^°* He 
was given power to fill by appointment vacancies in offices, 
and persons so appointed were to continue in office until a suc- 
cessor had been duly appointed, or elected, and qualified ac- 
cording to law. Most of the states had a similar provision in 



>" Afo. Const., IV. 16, 17; Shoemaker, pp. 74f. 
»«»Afo. Const., IV. 8; Shoemaker, p. 68. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 239 

their constitutions.^"^ The governor was commanded to issue 
writs of election to fill vacancies in the general assembly. A 
number of the states placed this duty on the governor.*"^ The 
governor was given the power of appointing, by and with the 
advice and consent of the senate, the auditor, attorney general, 
secretary of state, and all state judges. This was a greater 
power than was possessed by the governor in most of the states.^"^ 

The military powers of the governor made him the com- 
mander in chief of the militia and navy of the state, except 
when they were called into the service of the United States. 
He was not required to command in person unless advised to 
do so by a resolution of the general assembly. He was also 
given power to appoint the adjutant general, and all other 
militia officers, whose appointments were not otherwise pro- 
vided for in the constitution. Similar provisions were set 
forth in the constitutions of practically all states.^"' 

The legislative functions of the governor embraced his 
veto power on both bills and joint resolutions, his power to 
convene the general assembly in special session, and his power 
to send messages to that body. Only the last power has not 
been considered. The constitution provided that from time 
to time the governor should give to the general assembly infor- 
mation relative to the state of the government and should 
recommend to their consideration such measures as he deemed 
necessary and expedient. This legislative power was possessed 
by the chief executive in fifteen states. ^^° 

The expressed judicial functions of the governor were 
confined to his power to remit fines and forfeitures, and, except 
in cases of impeachment, to grant reprieves and pardons. 
These powers were possessed by the governor in nearly all the 
states."^ 

The lieutenant governor was elected at the same time, in 
the same manner, for the same term, and was required to pos- 



^"Mo. Const., IV. 9; Shoemaker, p. 68. 

"^ Mo. Const., III. 9; Shoemaker, p. 34. 

^" Mo. Const., IV. 12, V. 18. IV. 21. V. 13; Shoemaker, pp. 71, 99. 77f, 95f. 

'••A/o. Const., IV. 5, IX. 3; Shoemaker, pp. 66. 110. 

^'' Mo. Const., IV. 7; Shoemaker, p. 67. 

»>' Mo. Const., IV. 6; Shoemaker, 66. 



240 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

sess the same qualifications as the governor. He was president 
of the senate by virtue of his office. In committee of the 
whole senate he was privileged to debate on all questions and 
on an equal division he was given the casting vote, both in the 
senate and in joint votes of both houses. The constitutions 
of ten states provided for a lieutenant governor: his duties were 
similar in all these. Illinois and Kentucky were probably the 
models followed by Missouri in framing these provisions."^ 

The adjutant general was appointed by the governor. 
Neither his term nor his duties were prescribed. In practice 
he was the actual head of the militia and his term depended 
on the good will and the term of the governor."' 

The auditor of public accounts was appointed for four 
years by the governor and senate. His duties were to be pre- 
scribed by law and his office was to be kept at the seat of govern- 
ment. Only three states provided for an "auditor," and in 
each his tenure was appointive by the legislature. The functions 
of auditor were, however, exercised by a separate officer in many 
of the other states. His term in these states varied from one 
to three years."* 

The attorney general was appointed for four years by the« 
governor and senate. His duties were to be prescribed by'^ 
law. The constitution patterned this provision after the con- 
stitutions of Alabama, Kentucky and Mississippi. The ap- 
pointive tenure was the general rule followed by most of the 
states that provided for such an office. His term was three 
years in some and during good behavior in others."^ 

The secretary of state was the most important executive 
officer after the governor. He was appointed for four years 
by the governor and senate, and it was expressly stated that 
he was subject to removal by impeachment processes. His 
duties were largely enumerated. He was to keep a register of 
all the official acts of the governor and when necessary attest 
them; he was commanded to lay same, together with all papers 
relative thereto, before either house of the general assembly, 



'"Mo. Const., IV. 14, 15; Shoemaker, pp. 72f. 
i" Mo. Const., IX. 3; Shoemaker, p. 110. 
i'l Mo. Const.. IV. 12; Shoemaker, pp. 71f. 
"* Mo. Const.. V. 18; Shoemaker, p. 99. 



I 



Origin and Cofitent of the Constitution. 241 

whenever requested; and he was to perform such other duties 
as might be enjoined on him by law. He was further charged 
with procuring a seal of state, with such emblems as should be 
directed by law. This seal, called the "Great Seal of the State 
of Missouri," was under the custodianship of the secretary of 
state. All official acts of the governor, his approbation of the 
laws excepted, were to be thereby authenticated. Finally, 
the returns of all elections of governor and lieutenant governor 
were to be made to the secretary of state. Eighteen states 
made provision in their constitutions for a secretary of state. 
Three of these, Kentucky, Louisiana and Tennessee, were 
identical with the Missouri constitution. Four other states, 
Delaware, Illinois, Mississippi and Pennsylvania, made his 
tenure appointive by the governor. The remaining states either 
made his tenure appointive by the legislature or elective by the 
people, which latter obtained in Connecticut and Maine. Be- 
sides the first three states, only two others made his term four 
years, Indiana and South Carolina. With the exception of 
Virginia, which made his term during good behavior, the re- 
maining states were equally divided in providing a term of 
one, two, or three years. His duties were similar in most of 
the states. All the states made some provision in their con- 
stitutions for a seal of state. It went by different names. In 
the majority of the states the custodian was the governor; in 
Georgia and Connecticut it was the secretary of state. ^^^ 

The state treasurer was appointed biennially by joint vote 
of the two houses of the general assembly. His office was at 
the seat of government. No money was to be drawn from the 
treasury but in consequence of lawful appropriations. He was 
required to keep an accurate account of the receipts and ex- 
penditures of the public money, which account was to be pub- 
lished annually. The constitutions of only Georgia, Illinois 
and Tennessee provided a two year term for the treasurer. 
The appointive tenure by the legislature was the general rule 
in nearly all the states. The financial duties and regulations 
prescribed were also the same in most of the states. ^^' 



i" Mo. Const., IV. 19, 21, 22; Shoemaker, pp. 77ff. 
t^^ Mo. Const., III. 31; Shoemaker, pp. 53f. 
M S— 16 



242 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

The judicial powers were vested in a supreme court, in a 
chancellor or a court of chancery, in circuit courts, in such 
inferior tribunals as the general assembly might establish, and 
in local justices of the peace."* The system of organization 
was hierarchical both in form and in character of jurisdiction. 
Only the first three bodies, which were essentially state courts, 
received any considerable attention in the constitution, the 
others, which were local courts, being subject to the control of 
the general assembly. Not one, however, was free from a con- 
siderable degree of control on the part of the legislature. The 
only constitutional provisions that seemingly applied to all 
five courts related to clerks and writs. The courts were em- 
powered to appoint their clerks, who were to hold office during 
good behavior. For any misdemeanor in office they were liable 
to be tried and removed by the supreme court as should be 
directed by law. Nearly half of the state constitutions had 
similar provisions."^ The Missouri constitution provided that 
all writs and processes should run, and all prosecutions should 
be conducted, in the name of the "State of Missouri;" and that 
all writs should be tested by the clerk of the court from which 
they should issue, and all indictments should conclude, "against 
the peace and dignity of the state." A majority of the state 
constitutions set forth similar rules. Some used the word, 
"People," some "Commonwealth," but most used "State." ^2° 

The judges of the supreme court and the circuit courts, 
and the chancellor, were all subject to the same constitutional 
provisions regarding their tenure, term, compensation, qualifi- 
cation and removal. Their tenure was appointive by the 
governor and the senate. All the states except Georgia, and 
in part Indiana, provided for an appointive tenure for the 
judges: about half confided this power in the legislature and 
half in the governor and senate or council. ^^ The tenure was 
during good behavior. All of the states except Georgia, In- 
diana, Ohio and Connecticut, made the same provision. ^^^ The 



''» Mo.lConst., v. 1, 12, 17. 
i^» Mo. Const.. V. 15; Shoemaker, p. 97. 
'"Mo. Const.. V. 19; Shoemaker, pp. 99f. 
"'Mo. Const.. V. 13; Shoemaker, pp. 94f. 
"« Ibid. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 243 

salary was not to be lower than two thousand dollars a year 
and was not to be diminished during the holding of office. 
Practically all the states provided that either the salary was 
to be adequate or was not to be diminished during office. Mis- 
souri followed the general rule that obtained in all of these 
cases except that she stated definitely what the minimum salary 
was. Illinois was the only other state that did this, and Louis- 
iana was the only state that placed the salary at a definite 
figure. ^2^ The only qualification that applied to these judges 
related to age. The minimum age qualification was thirty 
years; the maximum was sixty-five years, over which no judge 
was to exercise the duties of his office. No other state consti- 
tution contained a minimum age qualification for judges and 
only five, Alabama, Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi and New 
Hampshire, provided for a maximum one. The actual qualifi- 
cations of the judges during the early state period were uniformly 
high but this was due either to statutory provisions or to cus- 
tom.^-* The removal of the judges was provided for either by 
impeachment proceedings by the house of representatives and 
by the senate, or by address of the general assembly to the 
governor. Both of these functions have been considered under 
the judicial powers of the legislature. ^^^ 

Besides these general rules applying to the organization 
of the three higher courts, the constitution also set forth specific 
provisions regarding both the organization and the jurisdiction 
of each court. 

The supreme court was composed of three judges, any two 
of whom constituted a quorum. These judges were to be con- 
servators of the peace throughout the State. A majority of 
the states provided for a supreme court of some kind although 
under various names. No rules obtained in the states regarding 
the composition of this court. The number of judges varied 
from three to eight. In all cases either two or a majority of 
the judges constituted a quorum, and in many states they were 



'" Ibid. 

"* Mo. Const., V. 14; Shoemaker, p. 96. 

'" See supra. 



244 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

expressly made conservators of the peace. The constitution 
of Indiana was probably the model followed by Missouri. ^^^ 

The general jurisdiction of the supreme court, except in cases 
otherwise directed by the constitution, was appellate and was 
co-extensive with the State. The constitution gave the court 
general superintending control over all inferior courts. It 
was also given the power to issue writs of habeas corpus, man- 
damus, quo warranto, certiorari and other remedial writs, and 
to hear and determine the same. The constitutions of Alabama, 
Georgia and Tennessee gave the same jurisdiction to their 
supreme courts. The Indiana constitution contained a similar 
provision but did not expressly give the supreme court power 
to issue remedial writs. ^^^ The place and time of sessions were 
largely under the control of the general assembly. It was 
provided that the state should be divided into convenient 
districts, not to exceed four, in each of which the supreme court 
was to hold two sessions annually, at such place as the general 
assembly should appoint; and when sitting in either district, 
that court should exercise jurisdiction over causes originating 
in that district only. It was further provided, however, that 
the general assembly might, at any time, direct by law that 
the supreme court hold its sessions at one place only. Few 
state constitutions made mention of these subjects. The 
constitution of Louisiana bore the nearest resemblance to Mis- 
souri's in this respect. ^-^ 

The composition of the court of chancery was a chancellor. 
The jurisdiction of this court was co-extensive with the State. 
The times and places of holding its sessions were to be regulated 
in the same manner as those of the supreme court. It was to 
have possessed original and appellate jurisdiction in all matters 
of equity, and a general control over executors, administrators, 
guardians and minors, subject to appeal, in all cases, to the 
supreme court, as should be provided by law. Only seven 
states, Alabama, Delaware, New Jersey, Vermont, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania and Mississippi, made any express provision in 



i" Mo. Const., V. 4; Shoemaker, p. 88. 
i" Mo. Const., V. 3; Shoemaker, p. 87. 
'"Afo. Const., v. 5; Shoemaker, pp. 88f. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 245 

their constitutions for a chancellor or a court of chancery. 
Regarding both the extent and kind of jurisdiction of this court, 
Missouri followed the Delaware constitution.'-' 

The circuit courts were modeled on those of the territorial 
period. Each was composed of one circuit judge. The State 
was to be divided into convenient circuits, for each of which a 
judge was to be appointed. Each circuit judge was required 
to reside in his circuit and was to be a conservator of the peace 
in that circuit. The name "circuit court" appeared only in the 
constitutions of Illinois, Indiana and Alabama. The functions 
of this court were, however, exercised in other states by like 
courts that differed in name only.''° The reason the number 
of circuits were not fixed in the constitution was probably due 
to the obvious necessity that would arise of making changes. 
The jurisdiction of this court extended to both criminal and 
civil cases. It was given jurisdiction over all criminal cases 
that should not be otherwise provided for by law, and exclusive 
original jurisdiction in all civil cases not cognizable before 
justices of the peace, until otherwise directed by the general 
assembly. The circuit court was further authorized to exercise 
a superintending control over all inferior tribunals that might 
be established and over justice of the peace in each county in 
its respective circuit. The time of sessions was impliedly left 
to the regulation of the general assembly. The place of session 
was expressly under the selection of that body with the limitation 
that one place was to be selected in each county. The pro- 
visions regarding the jurisdiction of the circuit court were prob- 
ably copied from the constitution of Alabama; those regarding 
the control of this court over inferior tribunals were patterned 
after the Ohio and Pennsylvania courts. ^'^ The circuit court 
was also given jurisdiction in matters of equity. Its decision 
in such matters was not final, being subject to appeal to the 
court of chancery. This equity jurisdiction was, further, not 
vested permanently in the circuit court, but only until the 
general assembly should establish inferior courts of chancery. 



'"Mo. Const., V. 9, 10; Shoemaker, pp. 86, 90f. 

>•• Mo. Const., v. 7; Shoemaker, pp. 86, 90. 

'" A/0. Const., V. 6, 8; Shoemaker, pp. 89f., 90f. 



246 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

In giving the circuit court this kind of jurisdiction the Missouri 
constitution followed the constitutions of Alabama and Dela- 



ware 



132 



The local courts embraced "inferior tribunals" and courts 
of justices of the peace. These two courts were subject in every 
express way to the control of the legislature. The constitution 
provided that inferior tribunals should be established in each 
county. These courts combined the powers of county courts 
and probate courts. They were to transact all county business, 
appoint guardians, grant letters testamentary and of adminis- 
tration, and settle the accounts of executors, administrators 
and guardians. The constitution further provided that in 
each county there were to be appointed as many justices of 
the peace as the public good required. Their power and duties, 
and term were to be regulated by law. A number of state 
constitutions provided for the establishing of inferior tribunals. 
Of these, the constitutions of Kentucky and Mississippi were 
the models for Missouri. ^^' A majority of the states that 
provided in their constitution for justices of the peace, made 
the tenure appointive and the term from three to nine years. 
Their number and duties were open to statutory regulation. 
The constitutions of Illinois and Kentucky were the models 
for Missouri on this subject. ^^* 

The constitution while enlarging on the frame of state 
government, its organization, powers, duties and limitations, 
paid little attention to the frame of local government. The 
form and character of the latter was in general to be determined 
by the general assembly. There were, however, four limitations 
on this power, the first three of which have been considered. 
Inferior tribunals were to be established in each county for 
transacting county business, justices of the peace were to be 
appointed in each county, no county was to be established 
with less than four hundred square miles area and no county 
reduced to less than that size, and a sheriff and a coroner were 
to be provided for in each county. 



"* Mo. Const., v. 11; Shoemaker, p. 92. 
'"Mo. Const., V. 12; Shoemaker, p. 93. 
"*Mo. Const., V. 17; Shoemaker, pp. 98f. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 247 

There were to be appointed in each county a sheriff and 
a coroner, who, until the general assembly should otherwise 
provide, should be elected by the qualified voters at the time 
and place of electing representatives. Their term was two 
years, and they were to hold office until a successor had been 
duly appointed and qualified. They were subject to removal 
for misdemeanor in office and were ineligible four years in any 
period of eight years. They were required to give security for 
the faithful discharge of the duties of their office, as prescribed 
by law. Whenever a new county was established, the governor 
was to appoint for it a sheriff' and a coroner, who were to con- 
tinue in office until the next election and a successor had been 
duly qualified. When vacancies happened in the office of either, 
they were to be filled by appointment of the governor and those 
so appointed were to hold office until successors had been duly 
qualified. Such appointees were not, however, rendered in- 
eligible for the next succeeding term. In tie and contested 
elections of either office the circuit court was given the power 
of deciding who should hold the office. ^^^ 

All the states made some provision for a sheriff in their con- 
stitutions and a number for a coroner. Thirteen states pro- 
vided for both officers in each county; the remaining states 
either provided for a sheriff" or sheriffs alone, or for two sheriffs 
and two coroners. About half the states had the elective 
tenure as applied here and the remainder the appointive. Seven 
states allowed a two year term ; six, a one year term ; five, a three 
year term; one, a four year term; and the remainder left this 
point open. A number of constitutions made these officers 
ineligible for certain lengths of time. Only two state con- 
stitutions, Connecticut and Vermont, required these offices to 
give security, however in Maryland the qualifications for sheriff 
were high. The governor's power of appointment in certain 
contingencies was one exercised in actual practice in a number 
of states although not provided for by constitutional provisions. 
In the case of tie and contested elections the local courts were 
not given powers of decision in any other state constitution. 
However, in Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia, these courts 



"' Mo. Const., IV. 23. 24. 25. 



248 Missouri Stniggle for Statehood. 

were the determining factors in the appointment of the sheriff J 
and coroner, and in Tennessee they were the sole appointers.j 
It was natural that when Missouri adopted the elective tenure 
for these ofifices, contested elections and ties were left to be de-| 
termined by the old judicial bodies having such full power inj 
these three kindred states. The local government provisionsj 
in the Missouri constitution seem to have been influenced by 
the constitutions of Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. 

This concludes the study of the origin and the analysis of 
the content of the Missouri constitution. A "Schedule" ap- 
pended to that document contained provisions and arrange- 
ments for the transition from the territorial government to a 
state regime. Being of a temporary nature, this schedule is 
not strictly a part of the constitution. In general this schedule 
did not differ from those in other state instruments. It treated 
of five main subjects: the territorial governmental processes 
and officers that were to hold over up to or after the inauguration 
of the state government; the temporary seat of government of 
the State; the apportionment of members for the first state 
general assembly; the first state election; and the governor's 
seal. It provided that legal instruments and actions at law 
then in force were to continue effective; that all territorial laws 
not repugnant to the constitution were to operate until they 
expired by their own limitations, or were altered or repealed 
by the general assembly; and that all territorial officers were 
to hold office and receive compensation until superseded by 
state officials. 

It provided that the first meeting of the general assembly 
was to be at St. Louis, with power to adjourn to any other 
place ; that that body at its first session was to fix the temporary 
seat of government until October 1, 1826; and that it had power 
to fix the compensation of its members. 

The following apportionment was made for the forty-three 
representatives to the first general assembly: Howard, eight; 
Cooper, four; Montgomery, two; Lincoln, one; Pike, two; St. 
Charles, three; St. Louis, six; Franklin, two; Jefferson, one; 
Washington, two; Ste. Genevieve, four; Cape Girardeau, four; 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 249 

New Madrid, two; Madison, one; and Wayne, one. Persons 
who had resided in the state five months previous to the adop- 
tion of the constitution and who were otherwise qualified ac- 
cording to the provisions of the constitution were eUgible to 
the house of representatives and to the senate. For the first 
election of senators, the State was divided into nine districts 
and the fourteen senators were apportioned as follows: Howard 
and Cooper, four senators; Montgomery and Franklin, one; 
St. Charles, one; Lincoln and Pike, one; St. Louis, two; Wash- 
ington and Jefferson, one; Ste. Genevieve, one; Madison and 
Wayne, one; Cape Girardeau and New Madrid, two. 

David Barton, president of the convention, was directed 
to issue writs of election to the sheriffs of the several counties, 
requiring them to cause an election to be held on the fourth 
Monday in August, 1820, for a governor, a lieutenant governor, 
a representative in Congress, for the residue of the Sixteenth 
Congress, a representative for the Seventeenth Congress, 
senators and representatives for the general assembly, sheriffs 
and coroners. Any person who had resided in the State at the 
adoption of the constitution and who was otherwise qualified, 
was deemed a qualified elector. The elections were to be con- 
ducted according to the existing laws of the Territory. 

Finally, the schedule provided that the governor might 
use his private seal until a State seal was provided. 

In a study of the origin and in an analysis of the content 
of the Missouri constitution of 1820 two points stand out 
clearly: first, this constitution was fundamental as compared 
with the majority of later state instruments in setting forth 
in brief terms the organization and functions of the State 
government; second, its general provisions differed in relatively 
few respects from those to be found in some of the then existing 
state constitutions. 

In the framing of some parts it is apparent that one or 
two state constitutions were largely the patterns followed; as 
regards other parts it appears that they were selected from first 
one and then another state's organic law. Naturally the very 
character of the inhabitants of Missouri predisposed them to 
follow the southern type of constitutions, especially those of 



250 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Kentucky and Alabama in preference to those of the north, 
but this did not seemingly in the least hinder the convention 
from favoring and choosing a section from the constitutions of 
Maine, Delaware, Connecticut or Pennsylvania, or from Ohio 
and Indiana, and throughout the entire document is seen the 
great influence exerted by the constitution of Illinois. In fact 
it appears that with the exception of Kentucky, the latest 
framed state constitutions, e. g., Alabama, Illinois, Maine, etc., 
were more influential than the others. Further it appears that 
the framers of this constitution strove conscientiously to adopt 
those provisions, from whatever source they came, that in their 
view were the best fitted for guiding Missouri in her future 
development. Two compromises on important subjects were 
included in this document and each was made in a similar 
manner. The selection of a permanent seat of government was 
shifted to the general assembly and the choosing of either the 
viva voce or the ballot system of voting was also shifted to the 
shoulders of that body. On the whole, it speaks well for the 
convention that its work stood the test of nearly half a century 
and then was displaced by an instrument whose adoption was 
based on reasons other than merit, however great the latter 
was in itself. 

The specific provisions of the Missouri constitution of 1820 
differed in some respects from those in other constitutions. 
These differences, or departures from established rules, were 
on the whole distinct advances. Some were merely novelties, 
but most were important and in practice worked well. The 
latter is proved by the incorporation of a majority of these 
specific provisions in the present constitution of Missouri. 

The preamble of the 1820 constitution contained a phrase 
that appeared in no other state constitution of that day. This 
phrase was that the people of Missouri did mutually agree to 
form and establish "a free and independent republic." There 
is, however, no reason to attach special significance to the 
word republic. It was merely a novelty that carried no import 
except to the Fourth of July orator seeking political favors. 

A number of provisions, applying to the legislature, was 
inserted that were followed by few of the twenty-three states. 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 251 

A two year term for state representatives obtained in only four 
states. An age qualification of twenty-four years for repre- 
sentatives was present in only two states. In only two states 
was an age qualification of thirty years provided for state 
senators. Biennial state elections were provided for in only 
four states. A corrupt practices act of equal worth obtained 
in only two states. A provision empowering the general as- 
sembly to punish by "fine or imprisonment" those, not members, 
for contempt of authority of the legislature, obtained in no 
other state constitution. No other state constitution gave so 
much protection to the rights of the slave as did this one, 
although no other state made it mandatory on the legislature 
to prohibit free negroes from coming into the state. Only 
five other state constitutions directed the legislature to make 
laws regulating the manner whereby suits might be brought 
against the state. In only two other state constitutions were 
biennial sessions of the legislature provided for, the others 
having annual sessions. Finally, only one other state con- 
stitution provided for a revision of the state's laws at regular 
intervals of time. 

The noteworthy provisions apply to the executive depart- 
ment were, with one or two exceptions, distinct inprovements 
over the other state constitutions of that day. Only two states 
required the governor to be at least thirty-five years old and 
only three states made his citizenship qualification so high. In 
only three states was the term of the governor as long as in 
Missouri, i. e., four years. With the single exception of Ken- 
tucky, Missouri was alone at this time in allowing the governor 
by constitutional provision ten days in which to pass on bills, 
the other states either placed a shorter time limit or made no 
mention of this. An officer called the "Auditor" was provided 
for in only three constitutions and in no state was his term four 
years or his tenure appointive by the governor and senate — 
being usually left to the legislature. In no state constitution 
was there so liberal a provision for the salary of the governor, 
no state set forth the minimum amount he should receive and 
one state had a maximum amount that was less than two-fifths 
of Missouri's minimum. Only two states provided for a four 



252 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

year term for the lieutenant governor and only one of these 
required him to be at least thirty-five years old. No other 
state constitution went as far as Missouri's in providing for the 
succession in case of temporary vacancy in the office of governor 
and only two states had such a detailed provision on the election 
of a governor to fill the vacancy occurring during the unexpired 
term of the regular incumbent. 

In the framing of the provisions on the judiciary, the 
constitution followed more closely the provisions in other 
constitutions than was the case in either the legislative or 
executive departments. This was natural. Of the three de- 
partments of government, the judiciary of the states was the 
last to succumb to the leveling spirit of democracy. The 
peculiar conservatism that has for centuries attached itself in 
English speaking countries to the law interpreting department 
of the State, the general high regard in which it has been held, 
and the sanctity of stability which has surrounded both bench 
and bar and which has enabled them to follow precedent and 
custom instead of being subject to changes, are all easily per- 
ceived by any one who has traced in even an elementary manner 
the institutional growth of English and American history. The 
Missouri constitution of 1820 was no exception to the spirit of 
the times in this respect. 

Several departures were, however, made in the Missouri 
judiciary department. Only one other state constitution pro- 
vided for a minimum salary for the judges of the higher courts. 
One state constitution did, however, mention what the salary 
should be. No other state constitution provided for a minimum 
age qualification for the judge and only five states had a maximum 
age qualification. 

The provisions in the Missouri constitution relating to a 
state bank were exceptionally conservative. 

It is also worthy of mention that only one state constitu- 
tion at that time provided an easier method of amendment, 
i. €., where an amending clause could be found. 

The last article in the Missouri constitution of 1820, 
article XIII on the "Declaration of Rights," was so uniformly 
similar to corresponding articles in many other state consti- 



Origin and Content of the Constitution. 253 

tutions that it presents no special points of variation of either 
novelty or importance. The same general spirit permeated 
the bills of rights of the various constitutions and the Missouri 
constitution was no exception. 



CHAPTER IX. 

A DE FACTO STATE. 

Missouri became a state on Wednesday, July 19, 1820. 
On that day was adopted the first state constitution of Missouri.' 
This constitution immediately superseded in sovereign au- 
thority the former organic laws of Missouri, i. e., the acts of 
Congress. Although provisions were made for the territorial 
laws and ofificers remaining in force and in office until the former 
were abrogated, amended or superseded by later state laws, 
and until the latter were displaced with state officers, such 
territorial laws and officers derived their legal power from the 
express sanction of the constitution and not from the territorial 
forms of government of 1812 and 1816.^ Even on the day the 
constitution was adopted, the president of the convention, 
acting under the authority vested in him by the constitution, 
exercised a power of the highest character, that by the territorial 
laws was expressly vested in the governor. This power was 
the issuing of writs of election to the sheriffs of the various 
counties to hold a special election.^ Not only were the writs 
of the first state election issued by David Barton on July 19, 
1820, but they were issued under the authority of "the State 
of Missouri." The following is a copy of one of these writs 
taken from the Jackson (Mo.) Herald of July 22, 1820: 



' This constitution was never submitted to a popular vote. The Missouri 
Enabling Act was silent on the point and the Missouri convention of 1820 made 
no provision for having the constitution submitted to the people. The preamble 
of the constitution stated that on Monday, June 12, 1820, the delegates in the 
convention did "mutually agree to form and establish a free and independent 
republic, by the name of 'THE STATE OF MISSOURI,' " and for the govern- 
ment thereof they did "ordain and establish this constitution." That the con- 
vention had authority to form a constitution and state government is obvious 
from section four of the Enabling Act. 

« Missouri Constitution. Schedule, sec. 1-5. 

« Mo. Ter. Laws, sec. 15, 20. 22, of act of Jan. 4, 1814, (pp. 299fl). Cf.. also 
sec. 7 of Act of Cong. June 4. 1812. (U. S. Stat, at Large, II. 745ff.) Mo. Const. 
Schedule, Sec. 9. 



(254) 



A De Facto State. 255 

The Slate of Missouri 
To the Sheriff of the County of Cape Girardeau or In case of vacancy, to the 

Coroner of said County, Greeting: 

You are hereby required, that you cause an Election to be held, in the manner 
prescribed by law, at the several places of holding Elections within your county, 
on the fourth Monday of August next, for one Governor, one Lieutenant-Governor 
of this state; a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the residue 
of the sixteenth Congress, a Representative for the seventeenth Congress; two 
Senators for the district composed of your said county and the county of New 
Madrid, and four Representatives from said county to the General Assembly; one 
Sheriff and one Coroner for your county — Herein fail not. 

WITNESS. David Barton, President of the Convention at St. Louis, the 
19th day of July, 1820, and of American Independence the 45th. 

DAVID BARTON. 

The regular territorial election of 1820 should have taken 
place on the first Monday in August: this election was never 
held because the territorial laws had been abrogated by the 
Missouri constitution on this point. Several other examples 
might be cited to show that beginning July 19, 1820, Missouri 
was a de facto state but it does not seem necessary here.* 

At least a month before Missouri had adopted a constitu- 
tion and become a state, and more than two months before the 
first state election, the "wire-pulling" of candidates for both 
elective and appointive officers had begun. The convention 
had barely settled down to the work of framing an organic law 
for Missouri when it was more or less torn by the political 
aspirations of those in and out of that body. It is impossible 
to say how much this struggle for office holding affected the fram- 
ing of the constitution; it is not improbable, however, that its 
influence was great. Some sections of that document, e. g., 
the high salary clauses, were probably the result of the work 
of those who expected to benefit by those sections. The op- 
portunities for "logrolling" were too many not to have been 
taken advantage of by the leaders. The "caucus" was as 
prominent as in the hey-day of later years and as fully com- 
mented on by the opposition. The secrecy that veiled the 
work of the convention, the almost criminally unsatisfactory 
character of the Journal on debates and votes, and the tardiness 



« C/. Mo. Ter. Laws, sec. 1, 11, of Jan. 4, 1814 (pp. 297f), regarding time of 
election, oflQcers to be elected, and qualifications of electors. Also act of Congress 
of June 4, 1812, sec. 6. (U. S. Stat, at Large, II. 745.) A proclamation of Fred- 
erick Bates, as acting governor of Missouri Territory, dated July 20, 1820, does 
not disprove the position taken here. The proclamation referred to offered 
reward for the arrest of a certain criminal. {St. Charles Mo., Aug. 12, 1820.) 



256 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

in the distribution of that document, were all calculated to and 
partially succeeded in keeping the people uninformed on what 
some of their representatives had done. This much is certain 
that the plans and counter-plans in the convention that stretched 
from the future occupants of the Bench of Missouri and of the 
State Executive Department to the Halls of Congress, were as 
vigorously fought for as were those schemes over the location 
of the temporary and permanent seats of government of the 
new State. This political campaigning was confined in the 
convention to a minority of the delegates but this minority 
included the leaders of that body. It is not improbable that 
these leaders were forced to compromise on issues in order to 
forward their ambitions and although the constitution suffered 
in some of these compromises it may also have gained in others. 

The early campaigning, which was in full sway by June 
and which probably had its inception in May, was over the 
state offices of governor, supreme court judges, and the two 
United States senators to be chosen from Missouri. Although 
only one of these, the governor, was elective by popular vote, 
the tenure of the other five rested on the will of the governor 
and the members of the general assembly. The importance 
of the governor was further increased by his power of appoint- 
ment of the chancellor and of all the members of the executive 
department except the treasurer, which, like United States 
senators, was exclusively under the control of the legislature. 
The office of representative in Congress was not subject to dis- 
pute as it was the desire of a majority of the inhabitants to 
see John Scott, the last territorial delegate from Missouri, 
returned to Washington. No one openly opposed his re-election 
and no other name was on the ballot for this office. The office 
of lieutenant-governor was not sought after in the early part of 
the campaign. Towards the close, however, several candidates 
appeared. 

The ability and public record of William Clark, the ter- 
ritorial governor of Missouri, and the many friends attached 
to him, furnished a strong recommendation for his candidacy 
for the office of chief executive of the new State. The lingering 
illness of his wife, however, who at that time was in Virginia, 



A De Facto State. 257 

acted as a check on whatever political ambitions were enter- 
tained by Clark.* He refused at first to have his name con- 
sidered and his secretary, Frederick Bates, was urged for the 
place. It is not clear who first brought Bates out but it is not 
improbable that one of his endorsers was Charless, editor of 
the Missouri Gazette.^ Bates had enjoyed public office in 
Missouri Territory and in the Territory of Louisiana for over 
a decade. His appointment to the secretaryship of these two 
territories and the satisfactory manner in which he had dis- 
charged the duties of his office, frequently being also the acting 
territorial governor, made him well qualified to hold the office 
of governor of Missouri. Bates was probably induced to become a 
candidate both by some of the supporters and by some of the 
enemies of Clark as well as by his own personal friends. Up 
to this time political conditions were unsettled. The informal 
announcement of Bates and his endorsement by Charless gave 
impulse to the wire-pulling of the politicians. 

Alexander McNair was brought forward as a candidate for 
governor. McNair probably announced his own candidacy. 
He was at once taken up and endorsed by those members of 
the St. Louis caucus who looked upon him as being less dis- 
tasteful than Bates. These politicians probably regarded 
McNair as being simply the lesser of two evils. They also 
thought he could be worked to do their bidding and they began 
sending out letters endorsing his candidacy. On finding McNair 
independent of their wishes and requests, they at once switched 
their support to Clark and countermanded their McNair let- 
ters. '^ 

The public and military record of McNair in Missouri 
Territory, combined with his model and hospitable private life, 
made him good, political timber. He had many friends and 
few personal enemies. Besides possessing a popular record in 
his administration of the United States Land Office at St. 
Louis, McNair was a "mixer." He was more popular than 



• Mrs. Julia Clark, wife of Gov. Clark, died at Fotheringay, Va.. on June 
27, (Mo. Intell., Sept. 2. 1820.) 

•See article by "Fair Play" in Mo. Gaz., Aug. 23. 1820. 
' Article by "Fair Play" in Mo. Gaz.. Aug. 23, 1820. 
M S— 17 



258 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Clark and his campaign in July and August showed his ability 
to discern and to present those political issues that advanced 
his cause. 

The announcement of McNair as a candidate was followed 
closely by that of Clark, It appears that the personal per- 
suasion of friends and of the St. Louis politicians induced Clark 
to give his consent to run. Bates, whose candidacy had been 
more rumored than settled, withdrew from the race. The final 
entrance of Clark and McNair as rival candidates for the 
governorship gave a definite tone to the campaign that changed 
little up to the day of the election.^ The support of Charless 
and of the Gazette followers swung to McNair; the machine 
politicians supported Clark. 

Clark was the choice of the leaders of the convention. 
The prominent politicians and lawyers of St. Louis were for 
him. These combined with his political friends throughout 
the Territory made his position a strong one. The well known 
St. Louis lawyer junto of the spring of 1820 became the caucus 
of the summer of that year. Joseph Charless, editor of the 
Missouri Gazette, waged war against the latter, especially against 
his rival, Benton — editor of the St. Louis Enquirer — , with his 
characteristic, fiery articles. Benton played safe in combating 
Charless and in pulling the wires for his own advancement. 
During June the caucus met several times. A slate was finally 
made with Clark at its head ; Benton and Jones were put down 
for United States senators; Barton — probably David — , Harper 
and Cook — probably John D. — , for Supreme Court judges. 
A majority of the members of the convention had nothing to 
do with these plans but all were aware of what was being done. 
Finally even in the debates of the convention, principles and 
issues on the constitution were dropped, "in order to indulge 
in invidious reflections on motives, such as personal views, 
intrigue, office hunting, carving and dividing the loaves and fishes, 
etc., together with exculpatory answers of antagonists." ' 



• Letter of L. Jno. O'Fallon, St. Louis, June 24. 1820, to Gen. T. A. Smith. 
(Smith Mss.) 

*Mo. Gazette, editorial, June 28. July 12, 1820. 



A De Facto State. 259 

Although the slate of the caucus did not go through as 
originally planned, it speaks well for the political ability of that 
body that every candidate on it except Clark was elected or 
appointed to an important state office. Benton and Barton 
reached the United States Senate; Harper was appointed State 
Chancellor; and Jones and Cook were appointed two of the 
first three Supreme Court Judges of Missouri. It appears that 
the first slate was later changed and some of the names dropped. 
Clark and Benton were, however, the conspicuous names that 
remained before the public and, although the Gazette was 
friendly towards several of the candidates selected by the caucus, 
Charless never ceased to oppose the candidacy of Clark and 
Benton.i" 

Charless was also opposed to the methods as well as to the 
lawyer-composition of the caucus. He wrote in part as follows: 
"It was a junto or caucus we alluded to who availed themselves 
of the opportunity which the meeting of the Convention af- 
forded to effect their selfish designs. We appeal to almost 
every member of the Convention whether he was not personally 
tried to be prevailed to pledge himself to the support of at least 
two of the candidates named, viz. : Governor Clark and Colonel 

Benton Governor Clark and Colonel Benton were 

two candidates fixed and determined upon. If the story 
enrages the noble minded Missourian, against some of the men 

named, it will efTect a desirable object But every 

friend of the state will oppose the men who arranged and plotted 
the scheme, and the public well know who are the authors of 
it ... . [Dare they deny] that a certain set of men met several 
times in St. Louis, during the meeting of the Convention, 
whose whole object was the determination how to dispose of 
the loaves and fishes in the future state of Missouri. Dare 
they deny that some of the friends of Governor Clark wrote in 
favor of Colonel McNair, at a time when it was understood 
that Governor Clark would not run. Dare they deny, that 
these letters were afterwards countermanded. And dare they 
deny that all this was done by direction of the caucus or junto. 



I'Afo. Qaz., Aug. 9, 1820, editorial. 



260 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

or whatever else the quibbling editor [Benton] may please to 
call the meeting." ^^ 

Of all the leaders of the caucus and of all the candidates 
favored by it, none was so bitterly attacked as Benton. In 
an editorial which appeared in the Gazette on July 12, 1820, 
the future statesman of Missouri was thus described: 

"A man crimsoned with the blood of one of our most promising young citi- 
zens, under circumstances of cold and deliberate calculation, whose only fault 
was to be in the way of his ambitious designs — whose character and reputation 
was spotless, and operated as a reproach to that of his ferocious enemy. We 
say that such a blood-thirsty man is much worse than 'a Panther.' " >> 

The St. Louis Enquirer was kept busy trying to explain 
and side-step the charges of the Gazette. It seems to have 
failed in defending its cause and in order to divert public opinion 
made the contemptible charge that the slavery-restrictionists 
were being headed by McNair. Early in the campaign the 
Enquirer, in answer to an article that had appeared in the Ga- 
zette, tried to connect the restrictionists and the McNair sup- 
porters — especially Charless. The falseness of this statement 
is shown by the fact that of the nineteen candidates for election 
to the General Assembly in St. Louis county, only two were 
in favor of restriction and one of these was a Clark man. The 
single restrictionist candidate in St. Charles county was a Clark 
man. No restrictionist candidates were up at all in Jefferson 
and Washington Counties. ^^ 

The Gazette-Enquirer controversies revealed the machine 
methods of the campaign: the public campaign waged by the 
candidates and their friends was described principally in private 
letters, public letters, and newspaper articles that appeared 
over anonymous names. While the machine campaign held the 
attention of St. Louis and the vicinity, the public campaign 
was given greater prominence in the county press. The echoes 
of the bitter Charless-Benton struggle waged in St. Louis hardly 
reached the ears of the voters in the Boone's Lick county; the 
latter were interested in the public campaign conducted by 



" Ibid. 

»» Charless here referred to the Benton-Lucas duel, in which Benton murdered 
the son of the eminent jurist. Judge John B. C. Lucas. 

"Mo. Gaz., Aug. 23, 1820. article by "Fair Play;" c/.. ibid., July 12, 1820; 
Enquirer, Aug. 12, 1820. 



A De Facto State. 261 

the friends and opponents of Clark and McNair and in the 
personal electioneering of McNair, 

The absence of Clark from Missouri during the campaign 
may have hurt his cause but it is equally probable that it gave 
him many votes through the sympathy of those who knew of 
the severe illness of Mrs. Clark. Further, Clark's candidacy 
w^as ably conducted by his friends and especially by the St. 
Louis lawyers and by other aspirants for political honors 
scattered over the State. 

Following closely on giving his consent to run, Clark 
wrote a public letter "To the People of Missouri." ^* This 
letter was modest in tone and reserved in language. It con- 
tained no mention of his opponent and merely set forth in 
concise language Clark's biography. In it Clark stated that his 
early life had been spent in Kentucky; that he had come to 
Louisiana in the fall of 1803; had lived in Missouri seventeen 
years; and had been its governor seven years. He added with 
pride that he had received commissions from four Presidents — 
Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. After stating 
that he would be away from Missouri till after the election, 
Clark concluded: "I cannot flatter myself that I am worthy to 
occupy the first ofifice among you; but if called to it by your 
voice, I shall bring with me a fervent wish to contribute to your 
prosperity, and to maintain the honor of a State whose name 
must forever be dear to me." 

The friends of Clark urged his case before the people in 
newspaper articles. The military and civil record of Clark, 
his negotiations with the Indians, and his joint-leadership of 
the even then famous Lewis and Clark Expedition, were his 
strongest assets in public esteem. ^^ His part in extinguishing 
Indian titles in Missouri was also strongly emphasized and struck 
a responsive chord in the hearts of the frontiersmen.^^ Clark's 
gentlemanly qualities and his knowledge of government were 
also urged and one writer with modern political astuteness 
called him the "poor man's friend." ^^ 



'• This letter was dated St. Louis, July 2. 1820. {Mo. Intell. Aug. 26, 1820.) 

"Afo. Intell. Aug. 12, 1820, article by "An Observer." 

»' Mo. Intell. Aug. 26, 1820, article copies from the Enquirer. 

^* Ibid., article by "G." 



262 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 



m 



The opposition to Clark made few charges against him. 
Clark's private life was exemplary. His present troubles 
secured for him the sympathy of even his enemies. His public 
record had been a long and honorable one. The only criticism 
urged against it by his enemies was Clark's laxness in protecting 
the frontier against the Indians.^' The most damaging argu- 
ment against Clark was his affiliation with the lawyer caucus 
at St. Louis. It was sarcastically said by one that the delegates 
from the convention had returned home friends of Clark and had 
since always spoken of him as a "great, good and wise man." ^o 
Since at this time many of the delegates had fallen into public 
disfavor on account of the high salary clauses in the constitution, 
their advocacy of Clark only served to fasten suspicion on both 
them and their candidate. In short in Clark's strength lay his 
weakness. His supporters and especially his campaign man- 
agers had displeased all by their caucus methods. It seemed to 
the voters that a ring had determined to dictate to the people, 
and the people in turn resolved to rebel against such plans. 
They turned to McNair, who was opposed by the caucus and 
who had voted against high salaries. 

McNair began his campaign early. It is probable that 
his obvious inactivity in the convention and the inconspicuous 
part he played in the framing of the constitution were due to 
his political ambitions for the governorship. McNair waged 
a personal campaign from the beginning. He not only appealed 
to individuals but he made a popular appeal to the people. 
His methods were democratic, savoring a little of the demagogue, 
but did not degenerate to personal abuse of his antagonist. He 
"stumped" the state and outside of St. Louis did or said nothing 
to incur either bitter hostility or contempt. The first recorded 
public utterance of McNair was made in June. He is reported 
to have said that he calculated on a majority of five hundred in 
St. Louis county, which would consist of "the honest farmers" 
who were able to appreciate his merits.^^ This well planned 



^* Mo. Intell. Aug. 5, 26, 1820, an article by "A Citizen." 
"Ibid.. Aug. 19, 1820. an article by "Shelby." 

•' Letter of L. Jno. O'Fallon, dated St. Louis. July 24, 1820, to Gen. T. 
Smith. (Smith Mss.) O'Fallon favored Clark. 



A De Facto State. 263 

vote-getter statement was followed by a brief, modest public 
letter to the people of the State asking for their support. In a 
postscript attached to this letter as published in the Missouri 
Intelligencer of August 26, McNair stated that he regretted 
that the Journals of the convention had not been dis- 
tributed, implying the culpability of the leaders of the con- 
vention, so that the people could see how he and other delegates 
had voted. He added that he had and still opposed the high 
salaries of the governor and judges and would recommend to 
the legislature their alteration.^^ One of the chief political 
assets of McNair was his stand against these high salaries. It 
was a popular stand and was reinforced by the fact that he had 
voted against incorporating such provisions in the constitu- 
tion. His record as Register of the St. Louis Land Office was 
also a recommendation for him. While holding that position 
he had deliberately disregarded the unpopular instructions of 
his superior and had granted more than a quarter section of 
land to individuals. This action had been opposed by the 
land speculators but had met with the approbation of the pioneer 
settlers. Further, the fact that McNair's interpretation of the 
law on this point was found to be correct and the orders of his 
superior were later changed, served to strengthen his cause.^^ 
The friends of McNair made prominent his military record 
and also dwelt on his private life. One writer said that he was 
"an exemplary father and husband, and a warm friend." ^* 
His hospitality, his private virtues and public services, were 
spoken of in the highest terms and little refutation was at- 
tempted in public by the opposition .^^ 

A letter was written from St. Louis late in the campaign 
accusing McNair of being an emancipator but this charge was 
publicly denied by McNair's friends.^^ More serious and 
better founded charges did appear, however, that were not denied. 
He was justly accused of having officially done nothing in the 



" The letter was dated St. Louis, July 21, 1820, and the postscript Franklin, 
Aug. 21, 1820. 

»» Mo. Intell., Aug. 19, 1820, article by "Shelby." 
«« Ibid. 

•• Mo. Intell., Aug. 5, 1820, article by "A Citizen." 
"Ibid., Aug. 26, 1820, article by "A Citizen." 



264 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

convention except vote; that no part of the constitution owed 
any of its excellence to him; that while the names of Barton, 
Bates and Cook were familiar ones in the convention, the name 
of McNair meant nothing; that his political aspirations and his 
ignorance combined were the reasons of his inactivity in the 
convention; that although he was a good citizen, a model hus- 
band, parent and neighbor, he lacked capacity and independence 
to hold the office of governor ; and that he could not be compared 
with Clark in knowing law.^' That McNair's methods were not 
dissimilar from those later employed by some politicians and 
that he was also not free from the strings of financial embarrass- 
ment, are revealed in the following extract from a private letter 
written by the well known St. Louisan, L. Jno. O'Fallon: 

"The election is getting very warm — McNair is making the greatest exertions 
in the tippling shops of this place — he can, at any time, now, be found in the back 
street, among the dirtiest black guards — asserting, that he must, and will, be elected 
— he is much involved in de.. [torn out] ing been protested in bank'foiu* times, [torn 
out] to sec\u:e the votes and support of his creditors, assures them that his election 
will tend much to extricate him from his embarassments — ." " 

It is quite probable that at least one of the reasons for 
McNair later appointing some of the machine politicians to 
office was due to the pressure of these very creditors. 

The campaign of John Scott for representative in Congress 
was confined to a public address, printed in the newspapers 
of the State. In this address Scott urged his past record, his 
experience in Congress — which, he said, would be an aid in 
securing final admission — , and his success in getting land grants 
for Missouri as a State. He concluded by defending his posi- 
tion in regard to the apportionment of delegates.-^ As Scott 
had no opponent, no attack was made on his candidacy. 

The campaign for the office of lieutenant governor, al- 
though not so actively conducted as was that for governor, 
engaged the attention of more candidates, there being four 
that presented their names to the people. The first of these 
to announce his position was General Jonathan Ramsay, a 
delegate to the convention from Montgomery county.'" The 



" Mo. Intell., Aug. 12, 26, 1820, articles by "An Observer." 

" Letter dated St. Louis, July 27, 1820, to Gen. T. A. Smith. Smith Mss. 

"Mo. Intell., Aug. 12, 1820. 

»Mo. Intell., Aug. 5. 1820. 



A De Facto State. 266 

record made by Ramsay in the convention was a good one. 
He was also an honest and able business man and farmer. 
His military career in Kentucky was a long and honorable one. 
Nothing could be urged against his private life. He lacked, 
however, the necessary state-residence qualification of four 
years for the office of lieutenant governor and publicly with- 
drew from the race.^^ Another candidate was the wealthy 
St. Louis business man and financier. General Wm. H. Ashley. 
Ashley's name had not then become associated with the fur 
trade, in which he rose to such prominence, but he was already 
one of the most influential men in the State. He had success- 
fully engaged in manufacturing gunpowder at Potosi, was a 
wealthy land owner, a big real estate dealer, and was interested 
in the old Bank of St. Louis. His military record in Missouri 
was an asset as well as were his long established residence here 
and the influence of his wife's relatives in southeast Missouri.^^ 
The principal opponent of Ashley was Nathaniel Cook, a dele- 
gate to the convention from Madison county. The two Cooks, 
John D. and Nathaniel, were prominent political characters in 
southeast Missouri. Both were popular and widely known. 
They were, however, in accord with the St. Louis caucus and 
this probably detracted much from the influence exerted by 
Nathaniel Cook in this campaign.^^ The fourth candidate was 
Henry Elliott of Ste. Genevieve. His part in the campaign 
was not a conspicuous one.^^ 

The campaign for the election of state legislators and of 
county sheriffs and coroners was noteworthy in the number 
of candidates. In Howard county alone there were at least 
thirty-nine candidates'^ and in St. Louis county there were 
nineteen for the general assembly alone .'^ Sentiment was 
strong against electing delegates to the legislature and this 
sentiment was given expression at the polls in sending only 
seven of the forty-one constitution framers to the first general 



•> Mo. Intell., Aug. 19. 1820. 

"Mo. Intell., Aug. 12, 1820; Houck, Hist, of Mo., III. 256f. 

»' Mo. Intell., Aug. 26, 1820. 

"Mo. Intell., Aug. 19. 1820. 

«• Mo. Intell.. Sept. 2, 1820. 

»• Mo. Gaz.. Aug. 23, 1820. 



266 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

assembly of Missouri, a body with a total membership of fifty- 
seven. Besides the general reasons already advanced for this 
feeling of opposition, especially those regarding the high salaries 
and the caucus, were these : that rotation of office holding should 
be favored; that the Journal had not been printed; and that 
many delegates had absented themselves on important votes.'* 
One writer with asperity urged the voters not to send to the 
first State legislature of Missouri as they had to the last terri- 
torial general assembly "a set of ignoramuses, hardly capable 
of reading, much less comprehending the English language, 
and woefully deficient in every qualification necessary to con- 
stitute a legislator." '^ 

The campaign closed on Saturday, August 26, and the 
first State election, in accordance with the provisions of the 
schedule of the constitution, was held on the following Monday. 
"The day was unusually fine," wrote the editor of the Missouri 
Intelligencer, "and the polls well attended," there being over 
two thousand votes cast in Howard county alone. He added 
that despite the many candidates and the conflicting interests 
at stake "the election was conducted with the greatest order 
and decorum, and reflects the highest credit on the citizens." *° 
None of the newspapers of the State contained accounts to the 
contrary regarding the orderliness of the election. The voting 
was by ballot.^^ Interest centered in the governorship, there 
being nine thousand one hundred and thirty-two votes cast 
for governor, eight thousand and fifty for lieutenant governor, 
and only five thousand three hundred and eighty for repre- 
sentative. So far as the returns are available today, McNair 
run ahead of Clark in most if not all parts of the State by large 
majorities. Even in St. Louis county, the headquarters of 
the ring, McNair polled twice the votes that Clark did, re- 
ceiving eight hundred and fifty-nine to his opponent's four 
hundred and thirty-one.^^ In St. Charles county Clark was 



"Mo. Intell., Aug. 12. 1820. article by "An Elector." 

"Mo. Intell., Aug. 26, 1820. article by "Howard." 

"Mo. Intell., Sept. 2, 1820. 

" St. Charles Missourian. July 22, 1820. 

"Mo. Intell., Sept. 9. 1820. 



A De Facto State. 267 

beaten nearly three to one; in Cooper county, four to one; in 
Howard and Jefferson counties, nearly two to one; and in Pike 
county, McNair and Cook received a majority.''^ The official 
abstract of the returns as examined by the general assembly 
showed that McNair had been elected by a majority of four 
thousand and twenty votes, receiving six thousand five hundred 
and seventy-six, and Clark, two thousand five hundred and 
fifty-six.*^ Over half the State vote was cast in the counties 
of Howard, Cooper, St. Charles, and St. Louis. In these four 
counties McNair and Clark each received more than half of 
their total support. 

The election returns on the lieutenant governor were close. 
The withdrawal of Ramsay from the race and the unpopularity 
or inconspicuousness of Elliott, left the contest between Ashley 
and Cook. The few county returns available show that it was 
no man's victory until all the districts had been heard from. 
In Howard county Ashley ran ahead of Cook by two hundred 
and seventy-six votes, receiving one thousand and thirty-eight 
to his opponent's seven hundred and sixty-two; in the ad- 
joining frontier county of Cooper, Ashley received only two 
hundred and ninety-five votes against the five hundred and 
seventy-three votes cast for Cook; in St. Charles county Ashley 
polled three hundred and fifty-five votes. Cook two hundred and 
thirty-nine; while in St. Louis county, the residence of Ashley, 
he received only three hundred and thirty-eight while Cook 
received eight hundred and eight.^^ The abstract of the re- 
turns examined by the general assembly gave Ashley three 
thousand nine hundred and seven votes. Cook three thousand 
two hundred and twelve, and Elliott nine hundred and thirty- 
one.^® In the four counties of Cooper, Howard, St. Charles 
and St. Louis, Ashley received fifty-one per cent, of his support 
and Cook seventy-four per cent. This seems to show that 



•» Ibid., Sept. 9. 16. 1820. 

•< Ibid., Sept. 30, 1820. The St. Louis Enquirer. Sept. 19, 1820. stated that 
McNair received a majority of three thousand nine hundred and twenty-three 
votes over Clark. The journal of the House as copied in the St. Louis Enquirer, 
Sept. 23, 1820, gave Clark two thousand six hundred and flfty-two votes. 

"Mo. Intell., Sept. 9, 1820. 

"Ibid.. Sept. 16, 1820; St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 19, 1820. 



268 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Cook, the southeast Missouri candidate, was better supported 
in St. Louis and the northern counties than Ashley.'*^ 

The members elected to the house of Representatives of 
the general assembly were: from Howard county, Andrew S. 
McGirk, Elias Elston, Daniel Monroe, Tyre Harris, James 
Alcorn, John Ray, Martin Palmer, Samuel Williams; from Cooper 
county, William Lillard, Thomas Rogers, William McFarland, 
Thomas Smiley; from Montgomery county, Jesse B. Boone, 
Bethel Allen; from Pike county, James Johnson, Daniel Ralls; 
from St. Charles county, Joseph Evans, Uriah J. Devore, Wil- 
liam Smith; from St. Louis county, Joshua Barton, David 
Musick, Henry Walton, John S. Ball, Alexander Stewart, Marie 

P. Leduc; from Franklin county, Philip Boulware, ; f rom 

Lincoln county, Morgan Wright; from Jefferson county, William 
Bates; from Washington county, George Hudspeth, Robert M. 
Stevenson; from Ste. Genevieve county, James Caldwell, Joab 
Waters, Daniel [or David] Murphy, James H. Relfe; from Cape 
Girardeau county, Joseph McFerron, Edmund Rutter, Thomas 
W. Graves, Robert English; from New Madrid county, John 
Hall, Richard H. Waters; from Madison county, Samuel D. 
Strother, and from Wayne county, Ezekiel Rubottom.^^ Of 
these forty-three representatives elected to the first general 
assembly of the State of Missouri, one, the unknown repre- 
sentative from Franklin county, died before taking his seat in 
that body; two, Ray and Ralls, died while the legislature was 
in session in 1820; one, Boone, died just after the close of the 
session; and two. Barton and McFerron, resigned before the 
end of the first session.^^ John G. Heath, a former delegate 
to the convention, was elected to fill the term of the unknown 
Franklin county representative; Duflf Green, another delegate, 
was elected to take Ray's seat; no one seems to have been elected 



" Pike county also went for Cook. Mo. Intell., Sept. 16, 1820. 

"Mo. Intell., Sept. 30, Oct. 14, 1820. 

"Regarding the unknown Franklin county representative see Mo. Senate 
Journal, 1820. p. 60. Ray died in St. Louis on Oct. 13, 1820. (Ibid., p. 51.) 
Ralls died in St. Louis on or about Oct. 30 or 31, 1820. His funeral was held 
on Oct. 31. (Ibid., pp. 82f.) Boone died in St. Louis on Dec. 22, 1820. (Mo. 
Intell, Jan. 1, 1821.) Barton resigned on Sept. 21, 1820. (Mo. Intell., Oct. 
14. 1820; St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30. 1820.) McFerron resigned in Nov. 1820. 
(Mo. Intell., Dec. 9. 1820.) 



A De Facto State. 269 

at this session to fill the place of Ralls; Henry S. Geyer was 
elected to Barton's seat; and William (?) Dougherty was prob- 
ably the man elected to take McFerron's place.^° The resig- 
nation of Barton was caused by his seeking the office of secretary 
of state; that of McFerron, by his being appointed to a circuit 
clerkship. 

The fourteen members of the senate elected at this election 
were: from Howard and Cooper counties, Benjamin Cooper, 
Bennett Clark, Richard W. Cummins, Elias Barcroft; from 
Montgomery and Franklin, James Talbott; from St. Charles, 
Benjamin Emmons; from St. Louis, Silas Bent, Mathias Mc- 
Girk; from JeflFerson and Washington, Samuel Perry; from Ste. 
Genevieve, Isidore Moore; from Madison and Wayne, David 
Logan; from Cape Girardeau and New Madrid, George F. 
Bollinger, Abraham Byrd; and from Lincoln and Pike, Samuel 
K. Caldwell.^^ McGirk later resigned to accept a Supreme 
Court judgeship.^2 Of these fourteen senators three, or twenty- 
one per cent., had been delegates to the convention; of the 
forty-three representatives only five, including Heath, or eleven 
per cent., had been delegates. 

The ablest members of the lower house were Joshua Barton 
and his successor, Henry S. Geyer; those in the senate were 
Benjamin Emmons, Silas Bent, Mathias McGirk and Samuel 
Perry. The character of the membership of both chambers 
did not begin to equal that of the convention. Many were 
men of little or no political experience and never rose to prom- 
inence. The leaders and the best minds of Missouri were in 
the convention, and the first general assembly was not a pro- 
convention body. The people had, with few exceptions, passed 
by their politicians and sent untrained men to legislate for 
them. The leaders waited and as popular indignation over 
high salaries and other measures subsided, they gradually came 
back. Thus while only seven delegates were in the beginning 
elected to the first general assembly, two more. Heath and 
Green, were added to the number by the close of the last session; 



"Mo. Senate Journal, p. 60; Mo. IntclL, Nov. 4, Dec. 9. 1820. 

•' Mo. Inlell., Sept. 30. 1820. 

" Mo. Senate Journal, 1820, p. 141. 



270 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

and in the second general assembly, eleven delegates were 
seated .^^ 

The first general assembly of the State of Missouri, in 
accordance with the constitution, convened in St. Louis on the 
third Monday in September, the 18th, 1820. The place of 
meeting for this session was the Missouri Hotel, — a fine, three- 
story, stone building, erected by Thomas Brady in 1819 and 
opened by David Massey in 1820. Walter B. Stevens, the St. 
Louis historian, thus describes this structure: "One of the most 
notable landmarks of the town of St. Louis disappeared in 1873, 
when the old Missouri hotel was razed, to give place to a business 
structure. In its day this was the finest hotel in the West. 
It was commenced in 1817 and was completed two years later. 
When the property passed into the hands of Major Biddle an 
addition was built to increase the accommodations. The 
Major went east and procured a professional hotel-keeper, who 
opened the house with an equipment and appointments which 
made it the hotel of the Missouri Valley." ^ 

The two chambers met separately and the members present 
having produced their credentials, were sworn and proceeded 
to organize. The house elected James Caldwell, speaker; 
John McArthur, clerk; and George W. Ferguson, door-keeper.^^ 
All these offices were contested. The election of Caldwell, of 
Ste. Genevieve, over Stewart, of St. Louis, showed the strength 
of the southeast Missouri forces. Later in the session John 
Rice Jones was appointed clerk pro tempore of the house in the 
absence of McArthur, and on November 8th, Jones was elected 
chief clerk of the house.^^ The senate unanimously elected 
Silas Bent president pro tempore; John S. Brickey, clerk pro 
tempore; and Jabez Warner, doorkeeper. Brickey after two 
viva voce votes was then elected clerk*^ and later in the session 
Thompson Douglass was elected assistant clerk.^^ The election 



•• Off. Manual of Mo., 1914-15. p. 150. 

"Stevens, St. Louis, p. 119; Billon, Annals, 1804-1821, p. 106, a picture of 
the hotel is opposite p. 106. The hotel was located on the southwest corner of 
Main and Oak Streets, now North Main and North H. Streets. 

"St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 23, 1820; Mo. Intell., Sept. 30, 1820. 

"Senate Journal, 1820, pp. 43f., 81. 101. 

»' Ibid. 

" Senate Journal, 1820, p. 41. 



A De Facto State. 271 

of Bent, of St. Louis, showed the strength of the St. Louis and 
northern county senators and this strength was never seriously 
threatened during the session. At 4 P. M. the senate and house 
assembled in the chamber of the latter and agreeable to the 
constitution made an official count of the votes for governor 
and lieutenant governor. A committee of three from each 
house was appointed to inform McNair and Ashley of their 
election and to request their presence before the general as- 
sembly to be qualified. At 11 A. M., on September 19, Governor 
McNair and Lieutenant Governor Ashley appeared before the 
joint session of the general assembly and in their presence took 
the oaths of office. At 4 o'clock of the same day, Governor 
McNair delivered in person his first message."^ This first mes- 
sage of the first governor of the State of Missouri was, unlike the 
majority of its successors, brief. It contained only one specific 
recommendation regarding legislation — the advisability of mak- 
ing provision for the appointing of presidential electors from 
Missouri. Nine days after this first message Governor McNair 
issued a proclamation declaring the election of John Scott as 
representative to Congress from Missouri. ^^ 

The first days of the session were spent in preliminary 
work. Committees, standing and special, were appointed, of 
which the most important were on claims, grievances, constitu- 
tional provisions, permanent and temporary seats of govern- 
ment, militia, vice and immorality, census, slaves, roads and 
bridges, and the great seal of the State.^^ In spirit with the 
governor's message, a resolution was offered on the third day 
in the house that stated it was inexpedient at that session to 
legislate further than was necessary for organizing the govern- 
ment and appointing officers. This resolution was tabled .^^ 
From almost the beginning of the session several important 
questions were under discussion that involved spirited contests. 
The principal ones were the election of the two United States 
senators from Missouri, the location of the temporary seat of 



•• Ibid. 

"Mo. Gaz., Oct. 11, 1820. Scott received five thousand three hundred and 
eighty votes. The proclamation was dated Sept. 28, 1820. 

" Mo. Intelh. Oct. 14, 1820; St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820. 
•> St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820. 



272 Missouri Struggle for Statehood- 

government, and the proposing of constitutional amendments. 
The first was settled within two weeks, the second towards the 
end of the session, and the last was defeated. 

The election of the two United States senators from Mis- 
souri had been before the public from the meeting of the con- 
vention. It had done much to bring about the St. Louis caucus 
and had been instrumental in defeating Clark. The August 
election had not settled the question, it had merely drawn the 
conflicting forces farther apart, cementing the elements in each. 
The convening of the legislature brought the subject up for 
final settlement. The house on the day following its organiza- 
tion had before it a resolution providing for the senatorial 
election being held on September 25th. This resolution was 
received on September 20th on motion of Ball of St. Louis.®' 
An election on the 25th would probably have meant Benton's 
defeat, owing to the lack of time his forces would have had in 
securing sufficient votes. 

The first law passed by the general assembly of the State 
of Missouri was on this question of electing United States 
senators. It was signed by the governor on September 28th." 
The law provided for a joint session of both houses and for a 
simple majority vote of the votes cast. By a joint resolution 
passed on September 29th, the first election for this purpose 
was set at 3 o'clock P. M., on Monday, October 2nd.®5 Ac- 
cording to the provisions of this resolution and the law governing 
senatorial elections, the senate and house convened in the 
chamber of the latter. The votes were cast viva voce: an attempt 
had been made in the Senate to obtain a vote by ballot but this 
was lost by a large majority.®^ The results of the election were 
as follows: Barton received thirty-four votes; Benton, twenty- 
seven; John B. C. Lucas, sixteen; Henry Elliott, ten; John Rice 
Jones, nine; Nathaniel Cook, eight. There were fifty-two 
members of the general assembly voting, and as twenty-seven 



•• St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820. 
"Laws of Mo., 1820, pp. 3f. 
" Senate Journal, p. 28. 

"Senate Journal, pp. 32, 34; Mo. IntelL, Oct. 14, 1820; 5/. Louis Enquirer, 
Oct. 7, 1820. 



A De Facto Stale. 273 

votes was a majority, Barton and Benton had been elected 
Missouri's first United States Senators. 

The election was dramatic. According to rumour, which 
has never been disproved and which fits admirably into place 
with undisputed and authentic historical facts, the votes of 
two men, — one, Daniel Ralls, who from his death-bed of twelve 
hours later cast his vote for Benton, and the other, Marie P. 
Leduc, who, hating Benton, was persuaded by his French 
friends to vote for him instead of Lucas, — finally determined 
the elevation of Thomas Hart Benton to the United States 
Senate.^^ The work and the credit, however, of securing the 
larger number of the other twenty-five votes for Benton be- 
longed to one, who within four years was treated as an enemy 
by Benton and who within a decade was defeated for reelection 
by him, — David Barton. The history of Missouri nowhere 
reveals so unnatural a deed, so perfidious an act, as the turning 
of Benton against Barton. The faults of Barton were many 
but his ability and honesty were never questioned and his 
nature was the most lovable. The public character and mind 
of Benton were perfect, but his domineering, brutal, conceited 
disposition was apparent in most of his work. One of the 
foulest blots in the life of the Great Statesman was this defeating 
the friend who had raised him to the heights of a conqueror. 
Barton wagered even his popularity in overcoming the un- 
popularity of Benton. The latter could never have won victory 
in 1820 without the unselfish support of his friend. The pop- 
ular condemnation of Benton's brutal murder of the talented 
son of Judge Lucas had not subsided and he was frequently 
referred to as the man of blood, the assassin. ^^ For Barton to 
have thus jeopardized his position for Benton and for Benton 
to have so perfidiously betrayed Barton, is one of the tragedies 
in the political history of the State. 

The votes cast for the senatorial candidates were sectional. 
These votes showed that St. Louis and the north Missouri 
counties, including Cooper, were in control of the legislature. 
All except five of the votes for Barton came from these quarters 

" Darby, Recollections, pp. 29ff. 

•• Mo. Gaz., spring and summer of 1820. 

M S— 18 



274 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

and similarly all except six for Benton. Lucas received his 
support, except three votes, from south of the river, and was 
unable to obtain a single vote from St. Louis county. The 
opposition of independent men to Lucas was based on his strict 
construction of the laws governing the old Spanish land claims. 
This was played upon by the Benton forces and is said to have 
induced Leduc to cast his vote for Benton. Elliott received 
his support from south of the river but none from St. Louis 
county. Jones received one vote each from St. Louis and St. 
Charles counties and his other votes from south of the river. 
Cook received his support from the counties north of the river 
and from Cooper and St. Louis counties.^^ The concentration 
of the anti-Benton men on one candidate would easily have 
defeated Benton. That there were any Benton votes cast for 
the other candidates is improbable considering the thorough 
campaign waged by Benton and Barton to secure support. 

Out-rivaling the interest and controversy created by the 
senatorial election, was the struggle over the location of the 
temporary seat of government. Although not as important 
as the present day question of prohibition, the location of the 
temporary seat of government was none the less the great ob- 
structive measure before the first State general assembly. This 
question held the attention of the legislators from September 
20th to November 25th, a period of sixty-six days out of an 
eighty-six day session. The ties of political leadership were 
broken and the interests of sections became supreme. Judging 
from the time spent and the number of votes taken, the location 
of the temporary seat of government was seemingly regarded 
as the most weighty problem that confronted the new State. 

The subject was brought before the house in a resolution 
introduced by Devore, of St. Charles. This resolution, which 
was tabled, stated that it was then expedient to adjourn the 

present session from St. Louis to J^ The house then 

passed a bill locating the temporary seat of government at 
Potosi.'^ The senate struck out Potosi and inserted Cote Sans 



<» St. Louis Enquirer, Oct. 7, 1820; Senate Journal, p. 28. 

'» St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820. Introduced Sept. 20, 1820. 

^i Mo. Gaz., Oct. 25, 1820; Mo. Intell.. Nov. 4, 1820. 



A De Facto State. 275 

Dessein." The house struck out Cote Sans Dessein by a vote 
of twenty-four to eleven. A motion was made to insert St. 
Louis, this lost by a vote of six to twenty-nine; St. Charles was 
then proposed and voted down; Franklin lost by twelve to 
twenty-three; Florissant, by seven to twenty-eight; St. Charles 
again lost, by fifteen to twenty; Boonville, by thirteen to twenty- 
two. By a vote of eighteen to seventeen — all eighteen votes 
being from St. Louis, Cooper, and the north Missouri counties — 
the house decided to leave untouched, but did not adopt, the 
senate's amendment. ^^ The question was not brought up 
again in the house for ten days, which time was probably em- 
ployed by the representatives in lobbying for votes. On re- 
consideration of the question, Franklin was proposed and lost; 
St. Charles, Boonville, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve and Her- 
culaneum, were each in turn voted down; finally by the close vote 
of twenty to nineteen Franklin was inserted, and the amended 
bill returned to the senate. '^^ The senate refused to concur in 
the amendment of the house and a joint conference committee 
of three members from each body was appointed. ^^ After 
considering the subject for a w^eek, this committee being unable 
to agree was discharged.''^ McGirk, of St. Louis, then had a 
resolution adopted by the senate requesting the house for a 
simple conference. Before the house had replied, McGirk in- 
troduced in the Senate a resolution locating the temporary 
seat of government at St. Louis. Emmons, of St. Charles, had 
this last resolution amended by striking out St. Louis, the vote 
being seven to three. ''^ St. Charles was then voted down by 
four to six; Franklin, by two to eight; Potosi, by five to five. 
Moore, of Ste. Genevieve, tried to have the question postponed 
until March 1, 1821, but was defeated one to eleven. ^^ St. 
Louis was then decided on by a vote of six to six and the presi- 
dent of the senate voting affirmatively. This vote was recon- 
sidered by a vote of six to six and the president voting affirma- 



" Ibid. 

'» Ibid. 

'« Ibid. 

'• Senate Journal, p. 98. 

^'Senate Journal, pp. 117, 119. 

" Ibid. 

" Ibid., p. 122. 



276 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

tively. St. Louis than lost by five to seven; Potosi, by four to 
eight; St. Charles by six to six, the president voting in the 
negative; and Newport, in Franklin county, by two to ten.''^ 
The simple conference requested of the house was then dis- 
charged by the senate and on motion of McGirk, of St. Louis, 
the senate by a vote of seven to five decided to adhere to its 
original amendment, i. e.. Cote Sans Dessein.^" The house 
adhered to its amendment in favor of Franklin, and the original 
bill with the various amendments was lost. The house then 
appointed a committee which brought in a new bill. It is 
probable, but not certain, that St. Charles was decided upon 
in this bill.^^ The Senate took up the new house bill, rushed 
it through and adopted it with an amendment in one day by 
a vote of seven to five. The house concurred in the amendment 
on November 25th, the bill received the governor's signature 
on the same day.*^ By this law the seat of government was 
located at the town of St. Charles until October 1, 1826. On 
motion of McGirk, of St. Louis, the following propositions of 
the citizens of St. Charles were entered on the journal of the 
senate : 

The undersigned, for and in behalf of the citizens of St. Charles, pledge 
themselves, should the temporary seat of government be established at that place, 
to furnish free of expense to the state, rooms suitable for the accommodation of 
both branches of the General Assembly, and also committee rooms." 
8th November, 1820. 

Benjamin Emmons, 
William Smith, 
Uriah J. Devore, 
Joseph Evans, 
Nathaniel Simonds, 
R. & J. Heath." 

The consideration of the location of the temporary seat of 
government had brought forward the claims of nine counties 
for this honor, and had wasted the energies of the general 
assembly for over two-thirds of the session. 

Surpassing in importance, both in worth and in public 
opinion, the location of the temporary seat of government, 



''Ibid., p. 123. 

•• Ibid., p. 124. 

•' Ibid., pp. 126. 136. 

"Ibid., p. 139: Mo. Laws. 1820. p. 37. 

"Senate Journal, p. 139. Cf., Enquirer, Oct. 1821, editorials. 



A De Facto State. 277 

were the amendments proposed to the constitution. Although 
the legislators settled, or rather defeated, the latter in little 
time and although the struggle over these amendments could 
not compare with that waged over the temporary capital, to 
the people of the State the constitutional amendments were 
the greatest pieces of legislation before the general assembly. 
Even before the constitution had been adopted, several serious 
criticisms were current regarding some of its provisions. During 
the campaign in July and August, 1820, these criticisms became 
stronger. To the people the constitution had several defects 
and it was the wish of the voters that the first general assembly 
begin the correcting of these defects. The high minimum 
salaries provided for the governor and the judges, the creation 
of the new office of chancellor, and to some degree the life term 
of judges and their appointive tenure by the governor and sen- 
ate, were unpopular. The high salary clauses and the chan- 
cellor clause were especially subjected to popular condemna- 
tion. If there was any single purpose that guided the voters 
on August 28th, it was to elect legislators and a governor that 
would strike these sections off the constitution. The people, 
however, were to temporarily experience the defeat of their 
wishes in this first session of their lawmakers. Only one thing 
was and is today certain in this respect, that eventually the 
wishes of the people prevail. The special session of the first 
State general assembly did in 1821 what the first session failed 
to do in 1820, and the second State general assembly endorsed 
the work of the special session. 

Petitions from the inhabitants of Madison and Cape Girar- 
deau counties on amendments to the constitution were pre- 
sented to the house in October.^'* Similar ones were circulated 
in neaYly one-half of the counties, and these were presented 
to the legislature, but the lack of a complete journal of both 
houses and the gaps in the newspapers, prevent the securing 
of accurate information as to the names of these counties.^* 
Governor McNair sent a special message to both branches 
of the legislature recommending an alteration in the constitu- 



» Mo. Intell.. Nov. 4. 1820. 

" (Jackson) Independent Patriot, Dec. 30. 1820. 



278 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

tion in regard to lowering the salaries of the judges.^**. The 
consideration of the subject and of other proposed amendments 
was not seriously begun, however, until the latter part of No- 
vember. The following amendments were then brought up 
for a vote in the house: 

Proposed amendments to the Constitution. 
Be it proposed by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, That 
amendments be made to the Constitution of this state, in the following articles 
and sections, thereof as follows: 

Article 3d 
Sec. 34. — The General Assembly may establish new counties and fix county 
line in such manner as they may deem expedient. Provided., That no county 
now established or hereafter to be established, shall thereby be reduced to a less 
superficial extent than four hundred square miles. 

Article ifth 

Sec. 13. — The salary of the Governor may be either less or more than two 
thousand dollars annually to be fixed by law from time to time. 

Sec. 23. — The General Assembly shall not provide that sheriffs, and coroners 
be otherwise appointed than by election of the qualified electors. 

Article 5th 

Sec. 1. — The office of Chancellor shall be and the same is hereby abolished. 

Sec. 5. — The General Assembly shall not direct that the supreme court be 
held at one place only. 

Sec. 9, 10, & 11. — The court of chancery and the circuit courts shall always 
have original jurisdiction in all matters of equity and a general control over 
executors, administrators, guardians and minors, subject to appeal in all cases 
to the supreme court, imder such limitations as the general assembly may by 
law provide. 

Sec. 13. — The compensation to each of the Judges of the supreme and circuit 
courts and chancellor may be less than two thousand dollars annually to be fixed 
by law from time to time, and the Judges of the supreme court. Judges of the cir- 
cuit courts and chancellor shall hold their respective offices during six years from 
and after their respective appointments, and until their successors shall be duly 
appointed and qualified, who shall be chosen by joint vote of both houses of the 
General Assembly. 

Sec. 16. — Any judge of the supreme or circuit courts and chancellor shall 
be removed from office, on the address of two-thirds of each House of the General 
Assembly to the Governor for that purpose. 

as a new article 
That no person holding any office under the United States shall be eligible 
or appointed to any office under the authority of this state." 

Geyer, of St, Louis, moved to postpone the further consider- 
ation of these amendments until the next session, but his motion 



••» St. Louis Enquirer, Oct. 14, 1820. The date and complete content of 
this message is not known. 

•• (Jackson) Independent Patriot, Dec. 30, 1820. 



A De Facto State. 279 

failed to carry. McGirk, of Howard, then submitted the fol- 
lowing resolution: 

"Resolved, That we deem it inexpedient at this sessslon of the present General 
Assembly to propose any amendments to the constitution. 

1st — Because one-half of the people of this state have not petitioned that 
amendments should be proposed without which we cannot know their will, 

2nd — Because we have not been admitted into the Federal union, until 
which time we deem a change inexpedient — and 

3rd — Because we deem it inexpedient to change our constitution until time 
and experience will shew [sic] that our constitution is defective and ought to be 
changed." «' 

This resolution was lost by a vote of eight to twenty-six. 
Of the eight votes cast affirmatively, three were from St. Louis; 
two, from Franklin; one each, from New Madrid, Cooper and 
Howard. Despite the provision in the amending clause of the 
constitution requiring an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all 
the members elected to each house to propose and to adopt 
amendments, Rutter, of Cape Girardeau, submitted a resolu- 
tion that a two-thirds vote of the members present was sufficient. 
This was lost by a vote of eleven to twenty-three. Of the 
eleven votes favoring this obviously illegal resolution, three 
were from Cape Girardeau, two each, from Washington and 
Ste. Genevieve, one each, from St. Charles, Pike, Cooper and 
Madison. After this preliminary skirmish the house took up 
the consideration of the several amendments proposed. The 
vote on the first amendment submitted was seventeen to seven- 
teen and was widely distributed both among counties and 
among representatives from a county, excepting, however, the 
counties of Ste. Genevieve, which gave the amendment its 
entire support, and St. Louis and New Madrid, which opposed 
the amendment with all their votes. The vote on the salary 
of the governor was twenty-seven to seven. The seven votes 
cast against this popular measure were distributed as follows: 
three from St. Louis, two from Franklin, and one each, from 
New Madrid and Howard. The vote on the amendment 
prohibiting the legislature from changing the tenure of the 
sheriff and coroner was eighteen to sixteen. Of the sixteen 
votes against this measure, twelve of the fifteen counties were 
represented — St. Charles cast three; St. Louis and Cooper 
each, two; others scattering. The vote on the amendment 

•' Ibid. All proceedings of the house are from same source. 



280 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

abolishing the office of chancellor was twenty-five to ten: the 
ten negative votes were distributed as follows — St. Louis, 
four; New Madrid and Howard, each two; Franklin and Ste. 
Genevieve, each one. The vote on the proposed amendment 
to section five of article five was twenty-two to thirteen, and 
on the amendment to sections nine, ten and eleven, of article 
five, was twenty-five to eleven. The amendment to section 
thirteen, of article five, was divided into two parts. The vote 
on the salary of the judges was twenty-seven to nine. The 
nine negative votes were distributed as follows: four from St. 
Louis; two each, from New Madrid and Howard; one from 
Franklin. The vote on the six years term for judges and for 
the appointive tenure by a joint vote of both houses, was twenty- 
seven to nine. The nine negative votes cast on this measure 
were distributed as follows: St. Louis four; New Madrid two; 
Franklin, Howard and Ste. Genevieve, each one. The back- 
bone of all this opposition was: Ball, Geyer, Leduc and Walton 
of St. Louis; Hall and Waters of New Madrid; Heath of Frank- 
lin; Relfe of Ste. Genevieve; Williams and McGirk of Howard. 
The vote on the amendment proposed to section sixteen of 
article five was eighteen to sixteen. The negative votes were 
distributed as follows: four from St. Louis; three each from 
Howard and Cooper; and two from St. Charles; one each from 
Jefferson, New Madrid, Franklin, and Ste. Genevieve. The 
vote on the new article was twenty-four to eleven. The eleven 
negative votes were distributed as follows: four from St. Louis; 
two each, from St. Charles and New Madrid; one each from 
Franklin, Cooper and Howard. Since the constitutional ma- 
jority of two-thirds of the members elected would have neces- 
sitated twenty-nine votes, and since no measure received more 
than twenty-seven votes, all of the amendments submitted 
were lost. 

While the house was attempting to pass its proposed 
amendments, the senate was considering three that had origi- 
nated there. These three senate amendments were as follows: 

Article 4th. 
Sect. 13. The governor shall receive an annual compensation for his services, 
to be fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during his continuance In ofSce. 



A De Facto State. 281 

Article 5th. 
Sect. 1. That the ot&ce of Chancellor shall be abolished, and the chancery 
powers shall be vested in the supreme and circuit courts, in such manner as the 
general assembly shall by law provide. 

Article 5th. 
Sect. 13. That the judges of the supreme and circuit courts, and chancellor, 
If not abolished, shall hold their oflflces during six years from and after their 
respective appointments, unless sooner removed; who shall be chosen by a joint 
vote of the Senate and House of Representatives of the state; and the compen- 
sation of the said judges and chancellor, if his oflBce be not abolished, may be less 
than two thousand dollars, annually, to be fixed by law from time to time." 

These amendments passed the senate on November 28th, by 
large majorities, the largest number of negative votes being 
two.^^ These measures, unlike those considered, in the house, 
were all important ones and were popular with the people. On 
being brought to a vote in the house, they all failed to pass, 
and an attempt was even made and received eight votes, to 
postpone the further consideration of amendments.^" The 
opposition of less than a dozen representatives, in some instances 
of only eight representatives, had thwarted not only the wishes 
of the legislature but those of the people of the State. The 
leaders of this small but well knit opposition were McGirk of 
Howard county and Geyer of St. Louis county. Their 
ability as politicians aided by the provisions in the amending 
clause of the constitution enabled them to successfully stand in 
the way of what the voters and their representatives desired. 
From the standpoint of the worth of the amendments, there 
was as much to censure as to favor in them : from the viewpoint 
of the people, however, the amendments were desirable. 

The action of the house in refusing to decrease the salaries 
of the governor and judges was in accord with their previous 
act of allowing a fair if not a high compensation, considering 
the times, to members and officers of the general assembly. 
The latter bill was the first to receive the veto of a governor 
of this State and was also the first to become a law over that 
veto. This compensation bill originated in the house and having 
passed both chambers, was placed in the hands of the governor. 
The governor courageously withheld his signature and returned 



•• (Jackson) Independent Patriot, Dec. 23, 1820. 

•» Senate Journal, pp. 142f. 

•• (Jackson) Independent Patriot, Dec. 23, 1820. 



282 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

the bill to the place of its inception accompanied by the follow- 
ing enlightened and public spirited message: 

A communication from the Governor "To the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives. 

"I have had under consideration the bill passed by the two Houses of the 
General Assembly entitled, "an act regulating the compensation of the members 
of the General Assembly:" and after bestowing on its provisions that deliberation 
and reflection due to its importance, I feel bound to withhold my approbation, 

"1. In pursuance of that system of economy which the financial condition 
of the state requires, I have already deemed it expedient to recommend a reduction 
in other branches of public expenditure. The allowance of the contemplated 
pay to the members of the General Assembly, would seem to me inconsistent 
with, and a clear departure from that system. 

"2. If the bill were to operate on the present session only, though I might 
still think it objectionable, I might not think it imperatively my duty to interpose 
the executive veto; but as the commencement of a system which might be drawn 
into dangerous precedents, I cannot suppress my objections, particularly when 
I reflect, that all experience shows it is much easier to increase than diminish 
an allowance, when once established in the beginning. 

"For these reasons I have felt it my duty to withhold my approbation of the 
before mentioned bill, which together with my objections, is herewith returned 
to the House of Representatives. 

I have the honor to be, with great respect, your ob't. serv.t. 

St. Louis, 17th Oct. 1820. A. M'Nair." " 

The house by the large majority vote of twenty-eight to 
seven passed the bill over the governor's veto and on the follow- 
ing day, October 19th, the senate, by a vote of nine to three, gave 
it the force of a law, — it being signed by the presiding officer 
of each chamber. ^^ This law regulated the per diem compensa- 
tion of members of the general assembly for attendance at four 
dollars; of the presiding officers and the chief clerk of each house 
at five dollars; of the two assistant clerks at four dollars; and 
of the two doorkeepers at three dollars. The clerical force of 
the legislature was, as is seen from this law, ridiculously small 
in comparison with that employed in later days: and the omis- 
sion of a regular staff and company of salaried pages and janitors 
is beyond the appreciation of one familiar with the payroll of a 
twentieth century state legislature. The members and the 
presiding officers of both houses were further allowed mileage 
at the rate of three dollars for every twenty-five miles "they 
must necessarily travel, going to and from the said assemblies." '* 
Such were the extravagant salaries carried in this law that pro- 

»' Senate Journal, pp. 58f; Mo. Gaz., Oct. 25, 1820; Mo. Intell., Nov. 11, 
1820. 

" Senate Journal, pp., 58flf; Mo. Intell., Nov. 18. 1820. 
" Mo. Laws, 1820. pp. 34f. 



A De Facto State. 283 

voiced the first State governor of Missouri to say: "I have 
felt it my duty to withhold my approbation of the before men- 
tioned bill." Considered in the light of modern times, this 
law and its brief history cause us to waver between two con- 
victions — praise of the courage of Governor McNair and praise 
of the modesty of the first State general assembly of Missouri.^'* 

Nothing reveals so clearly the limited character of govern- 
mental activities in the new State and the economy adopted 
in conducting these activities, as a survey of the State's finances 
in 1820, including budget making, taxes and appropriations. 
The first State general assembly of Missouri with businesslike 
forethought resolved to estimate the probable income and ex- 
penses of the State before le\'ying taxes or passing appropriation 
bills. This body being practically unlimited in its financial 
powers, decided to equalize the revenues and expenditures by 
providing new taxes or raising old ones and by economizing 
in appropriation items. The senate finance committee reported 
a budget for the year 1820-1821 which was the basis of the 
financial legislation of the session. ^^ The probable annual 
expenditures were estimated by this committee as follows: 

General Assembly — pay of members, rent, contingent expenses, sta- 
tionery, printing laws and journals, etc., for a sixty day session. . $20,000 

Salary of Governor $2 , 000 

Salary of three Supreme Court Judges 6,000 

Salary of Chancellor 2 , 000 

Salary of four Circuit Judges 8.000 18,000 

Salary of Sec. of State, Attorney General, Auditor and Treas- 
urer 3 , 000 

Contingent Expenses 4 , 000 

Total $45,000 

The probable annual revenue was estimated as follows: 

"The amount of revenue produced by the territorial mode of taxation 

for the year ending on the first Monday of December, 1819, was. . $24,424 

"The confirmed lands within the limits of the state, are 1,087,143 
acres, which being taxed as is proposed in the report, at one dollar 
per hundred acres, would produce, in addition to revenue by the 
territorial mode of taxation, the sum of 4,348 



•« The constitution gave the general assembly unlimited power to set their 
own compensation. Mo. Const., 1820, III. 24. 

" Senate Journal, pp. 74ff. Emmons was chairman. Report was made 
on Oct. 27. 



284 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

"The lands sold by the United States on the 30th day of September, 
1820, amounted to 1,250,934 acres, which being taxed as is pro- 
posed in the report, would produce the sum of $12,509 

$41,281 

The report added that this would leave "a deficit of $3,719.00, 
to be provided for by the revenue arising from the increased 
tax on slaves; the tax on the military bounty lands; sales at 
auction; the tax on law process, and on bank stock; which will 
be amply sufficient, in the opinion of the committee, to make 
up the deficit, and meet all the drawbacks which will be oc- 
casioned by these lands forfeited to the United States, by reason 
of the purchaser not making payment." 

The general assembly followed in general the recommenda- 
tions of this report in regard to raising revenue and making 
appropriations. A general land, lot, and improved real estate 
tax was imposed at the rate of twenty-five cents on the hun- 
dred dollar valuation; slaves and live stock over three years 
old were taxed at the same rate; pleasure carriages, at one 
per cent, of their value; furniture, at fifty cents on the hundred 
dollars; watches, at two dollars on the hundred dollars (both 
furniture and watches on sale were exempted from these taxes) ; 
and a poll tax of one dollar was imposed on free, white males 
over twenty-one years old. Special and license taxes were 
imposed on a number of objects and occupations, the most 
important being: a twenty dollar wine and liquor license for 
every six months; a merchants and peddlers tax of fifteen dollars 
to two hundred dollars every six months for the sale of foreign 
made goods; an auction tax of three dollars per one hundred 
dollars on personal property and one dollar and a half per one 
hundred dollars on real estate; an auctioneer's license of one 
hundred dollars for every six months; a ferry license tax; and a 
billiard table license of fifty dollars for every six months. ^^ The 
appropriation bill passed at this session carried a total of 
$49,359,133^. The most important items in this bill were:'^ 

Salary of the governor and eight judges, $18,000.00 

Salary of the secretary of state, auditor, treasiurer, attorney general, 

adjutant general, and circuit attorneys 3 , 590 . 00 

Contingent expenses of the office of secretary of state 500 . 00 

•• Mo. Laws, 1820, pp. 90f; 92f ; 76fif; 83ff ; 61f. 
•' Mo. Laws, 1820, pp. 82f. 



A De Facto State. 285 

Pay of the members of the general assembly, officers, and presiden- 
tial electors $25,000.00 

Printing laws and journals of the session 1 ,200.00 

Contingent expenses of the session, including furniture, sundry 
printing, stationery, fuel and janitor service, election returns 
of the governor and lieutenant governor, rent, state seal, etc. . 1,069. 13 J4 

Total $49 ,359 . 13 H 

Some of the separate items in this bill together with the incred- 
ible accuracy of the appropriation made for them, are remark- 
able. Only $267.11 were spent by this general assembly for 
its contingent printing and the representatives and senators 
used only S166.50 for stationery. The total printing bill of 
the state, excluding the constitutional convention, amounted 
to only $1,467.11; today the annual State printing is close to 
$150,000. This general assembly spent the ridiculous sum of 
$50 for janitor service and for fuel of the senate, and $130 for 
these items of the house. Such economy is wonderful. Five 
dollars was appropriated to G. Bassinet for making a model of 
the State seal, and $25,123/2 was appropriated for the sundry 
expenses of the senate. Such economy if not parsimony is 
today unheard of and its early return is unlikely. ^^ 

Those salaries of all state officers that were not set by the 
constitution were provided for by legislative enactment. The 
salary of the attorney general was placed at five hundred dollars 
a year and of the secretary of state, auditor, and treasurer, 
each at seven hundred and fifty dollars a year.^^ The ap- 
pointment of persons to these offices and to the judiciary, was 
an important political function of the governor and the legis- 
lature. Many applicants advanced their claims and as one 
observer wrote "it was a good thing to have a friend at court." ^°'* 
Governor McNair was naturally criticised for many of his acts 
and especially for his appointments. The latter criticism was, 
however, based more on disappointed ambitions than on facts. 
One of the foremost and ablest public men of the State was 

•« No money was appropriated in 1820 even for the pay of Gov. McNair's 
private secretary, William G. Pettus, who was probably compensated by the 
governor from his private purse. 

•• Mo. Laws. 1820, pp. 38f, 66, 87fl. 

^"Mo. Iniell.. Jan. 1. 1821. 



286 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

appointed secretary of state. Joshua Barton was an eminent 
lawyer and an honest pubUc official. His election to the sec- 
retaryship of state was but a recognition of his talents. Edward 
Bates was appointed attorney general; William Christy, auditor; 
and Pierre Didier, treasurer. The conspicuous part played by 
Bates in the convention first brought him prominently before 
the people. His connection with the caucus was not close. 
His friends were supporters of both Clark and McNair. His 
integrity was never questioned and, although a young man, 
he was well versed in the law. Notwithstanding the recom- 
mendation of Bates made by McNair, the senate refused at 
first to confirm him. McNair sent a second communication 
on Bates to that body, which then endorsed his nomination. ^"^ 
William Christy was a native of Pennsylvania, was reared in 
that State and in Kentucky, and came to St. Louis in 1804. 
He had served as auditor for the Territory and was a prominent 
politician. ^^2 Pierre Didier was a native of St. Louis and his 
appointment to the office of State treasurer by the general 
assembly was probably due to the influence exerted for him 
by his French friends in St. Louis and the adjoining counties. ^°^ 
The appointment of the judges, including three of the supreme 
court, a chancellor, and four judges for the circuit courts, was 
a long drawn out struggle between the governor and the senate. 
The senate sat behind closed doors and at least two of the 
governor's candidates were rejected. It is probable that those 
finally appointed either owed their office as much to the senate 
as to the governor or were compromise appointees. ^"^ The 
supreme court judges finally appointed were Mathias McGirk, 
senator from St. Louis county, John D. Cook, of Cape Girar- 
deau county, and John Rice Jones, of Washington county. 
Cook and Jones had been delegates to the constitutional con- 
vention and had been active leaders in that body. The former 
was barely qualified to serve as judge on account of his youth, 



••' Senate Journal, 1820, p. 36. 
■•• Houck, Hist. Mo., III. 48. 

'" The ofSce of State treasurer was filled according to the constitution by 
the general assembly, the governor having no voice in selecting the occupant. 
•" St. Louis Enquirer, Nov. 18, 1820, editorial. 



A De Facto State. 287 

the latter on account of his age.^°* McGirk resigned his seat 
in the senate on November 27th, in order to accept the appoint- 
ment to the supreme court bench. ^"^ He had served in the 
Territorial Council and this was the only public office he 
had filled. Like John D. Cook, McGirk was a young man 
being barely thirty years of age. He was a popular man but 
was not especially learned in the law. He served, however, 
as supreme court judge for twenty-one years and it is said that 
his opinions in the first six volumes of the Missouri Reports 
will compare favorably with those of any other judge of his 
time.^"^ William Harper was appointed chancellor. Little is 
known regarding his life but it is presumed that he later went 
to South Carolina several years after his office had been abol- 
ished in Missouri.^"* The four circuit court judges were David 
Todd, Rufus Pettibone, Nathaniel Beverly Tucker and Richard 
S. Thomas. All were good lawyers, the first three being grad- 
uates of colleges. Thomas had been a delegate to the con- 
stitutional convention and only the anti-slavery attitude had 
prevented Pettibone from election to that body.^"^ The per- 
sonnel of both the executive and judicial departments of the 
State government was high. Much of the stability that is 
apparent in the early history of the State was doubtless due to 
the character and ability of such public officers as Bates, Barton, 
Cook, Jones, McGirk, and other eminent lawyers of that day. 
One of the important political acts of the general assembly 
at this session was the election of the first presidential electors 
from Missouri. This took place at 3 P. M., on November 2. 
The election was made by a joint vote of both houses. "Those 
members of the Legislature whose names were before the public 
as candidates for electors, declined standing a poll, the better 
opinion prevailing that a member of the Legislature could not 
consistently with the Constitution of this state hold the office 



'»»The constitution had a minimum age qualiflcation for judges of thirty 
years, and a maximum one of sixty-five years. 

'•» Senate Journal, 1820, p. 141. 

"■•Bay, pp. 536. He came to Missoiu-i about 1814 or 1816. After his ap- 
pointment to the bench he moved to Montgomery county and married into the 
Tabbott family. 

'•• Houck, His. Mo., III. 267. 

"'Bay, pp. 389ff., 98f., 251; Houck, Hist. Mo., III. 9flf. 



288 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

of elector, and that the acceptance of the latter office would 
vacate the former." ^^^ The three electors chosen were Major 
William Christy, of St. Louis county, John S. Brickey, of Cooper, 
and William Shannon, of Ste. Genevieve. All three pledged 
themselves to vote for James Monroe as president and Daniel 
D. Tomkins for vice president of the United States.^^' 

The legislative activity of the first general assembly at this 
session was considerable despite the controversies waged over 
the important elections and appointments made by the general 
assembly and by the governor and senate and despite the longX 
drawn out struggles over the location of the temporary seat of 
government and the proposing of constitutional amendments. 
Fifty-one laws were enacted, the majority being necessary for 
perfecting the organization of the State government. The 
duties of the various state and local administrative officials 
were determined; the judiciary was defined and regulated as 
regards jurisdiction and the time and place of holding court; 
provision was made for taking the census; and the militia was 
given an organization. Some private bills for incorporating 
academies and for the relief of individuals were also passed. 
Excepting the state organization laws and the revenue measures, 
the most important laws passed related to the establishing of 
new counties, the selecting of six of the twelve Salt Springs 
donated by the National Government, the appointing of a 
commission to report on a site for the permanent seat of gov- 
ernment, and the preventing of waste on the public school 
lands. Ten new counties were established at this session — 
Boone, Callaway, Chariton, Cole, Gasconade, Perry, Ray, 
Saline, Lillard and Ralls. Five lay north of the Missouri River, 
five south. Eight of these, however, were formed from either 
the Salt River or the Boone's Lick country and these greatly 
increased the power of the frontier in the legislature. The 
commission appointed to report on the location of the permanent 
seat of government was composed of John Thornton, of Howard 
county, Robert Guy Watson, of New Madrid, John B. White, 
of Pike, James Logan, of Wayne, and Jesse B. Boone, of Mont- 



'" St. Louis Enquirer, Nov. 4, 1820; Senate Journal. 1820, p. 89. 
'" Ibid. 



A De Facto State. 289 

gomery."- Only two of the five commissioners were legislators, 
Logan being a senator and Boone a representative. A resolu- 
tion was offered in the house by Geyer, of St. Louis, for the 
committee on finances to inquire into the expediency of author- 
izing a loan of 81,000,000 on the State's credit, redeemable in 
twenty years, for establishing a State bank."^ Nothing came 
of this attempt to establish a State bank and seventeen years 
passed before such an institution was chartered in Missouri. 
Attempt was also made to select the designs for the Great Seal 
of the State. The house wanted as part of the emblem "a 
cock close around, resting on a sheaf of wheat;" the senate 
struck out "cock" and inserted "an eagle." ^" It was not, 
however, until 1822 that a law was passed describing the Great 
Seal. 

Besides enacting laws the general assembly seems to have 
passed several resolutions and memorials. The volume of ses- 
sion acts of this session does not incorporate any of these. A 
resolution was introduced and was probably passed for cor- 
recting the errors found in the printed draft of the constitution ; 
and another providing that an exchange of the laws of the State 
be made with New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia. ^^^ 
Several memorials to Congress were also introduced and appear 
to have passed. These were on the questions of pre-emption 
rights, an extension of credit for paying for public lands, and on 
the subject of laying additional duties on foreign lead and iron. 
A protective tariff on these minerals that were produced so 
extensively in Missouri was desired by a large part of the 
population even in 1820. No record has been found of these 
memorials having been presented to Congress in 1820 and 
1821."^ Finally after a session of eighty-six days, seventy- 
four being devoted to legislation, the first session of the general 
assembly adjourned on December 12, 1820.^'^ 

'"Afo. Laws, 1820. pp. 15f. 

^^>Mo. Intell., Nov. 1. 1820. 

"« Senate Journal, 1820, pp. 145f. 

"• Senate Journal, 1820, pp. 29, 40. 

'"St. Louis Enquirer, Sept. 30, 1820: Senate Journal, 1820, pp. 84; Mo. Gaz., 
Oct. 11, 25, Nov. 1, 1820. 

'" Mo. Intell., Jan. 1, 1821. The Intelligencer says after a session of eighty- 
four days. 

M S— 19 



CHAPTER X. 
SECOND MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 

The framing of the Missouri constitution of 1820, the 
election of state and local officials, and the organization of a 
state government, did not, as had been expected, either actually 
or virtually settle Missouri's struggle for statehood. That 
Missouri had a state government in nearly full working, that 
Missourians regarded Missouri as a state, and that a large part 
of the Nation shared this view, did not deter northern states- 
men and their constituents from making plans to delay, if not 
defeat, Missouri's admission. These plans were publicly ex- 
pressed in the eastern newspapers and were copied by the Mis- 
souri press as early as in September, 1820.^ 

It was, therefore, not surprising that Barton, Benton and 
Scott were not permitted to take their seats in Congress when 
they arrived in Washington, November 16, 1820.^ The ap- 
ponents of the State maintained that until the 1820 constitu- 
tion was accepted, Missouri's senators and representative in 
Congress were suspended. This viewpoint was maintained 
and enforced during the 1820-1821 session of Congress.^ 

Scott would have been allowed a seat in the House if he 
had acted as a delegate but such an act would have impliedly 
confessed that Missouri was still a territory. This important 
point was concisely stated by Scott in a letter to C. S. Hemp- 
stead, dated Washington City, December 31, 1820: 

"None of us have our seats. I will not act as Delegate; because I take the 
ground that we are a STATE — and so do all our friends — and were I to act as 
Delegate, it might be construed into an acknowldgement that we are still a ter- 
ritory. The consequence is, that the business of Missouri, land claims and all, 
stand still, till we are disposed of in our state pretensions." * 

These "state pretensions" were brought before the at- 
tention of the second session of the sixteenth Congress shortly 

> Cf., St. Louis Enq., Sept.-Dec. 1820. 
•Mo. Intell., Dec. 18, 1820, Jan. 1. 1821. 

• Cf., letter of Col. John Williams, U. S. Senator from Tennessee, dated. 
Washington, Jan. 7, 1821. {T. A. Smith Mss.) 
'St. Louis Enq., Jan. 27, 1821. 

(290) 



Second Missouri Compromise. 291 

after the convening of the two houses. A copy of the Missouri 
constitution was laid before the Senate on November 14th — 
the second day of the session : and another copy was laid before 
the House by Mr. Scott on the 16th inst. Both bodies at once 
referred these documents to committees.^ 

The Senate was known to be favorably inclined towards 
admitting Missouri, but the House was regarded as being 
strongly opposed to this. The Senate committee to which had 
been referred the Missouri constitution reported favorably on 
November 29th and presented a resolution declaring the ad- 
mission of the new State.® The opponents of admission and of 
the resolution at once attacked that clause in Missouri's con- 
stitution which made it commandatory on the general assembly 
of the State to pass laws "to prevent free negroes and mulattoes 
from coming to, and settling in, this state, under any pretext 
whatsoever." To conciliate these opponents in the Senate the 
following proviso to the statehood resolution was offered by 
Mr. Eaton of Tennessee: 

"Protidcd. That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to give 
the assent of Congress to any pro%'ision in the constitution of Missouri, if any 
such there be, wliich contravenes that clause in the Constitution of the United 
States, which declares that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
pri\ileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' " ' 

This proviso was defeated by a vote of twenty-one to twenty- 
four, and for the next four days the Missouri Question was 
long debated in the Senate. The resolution of admission having 
been finally amended by the Eaton proviso, was adopted by a 
vote of twenty-six to eighteen on December 11th, and was 
sent to the House, where after being read once it was ordered 
to lie on the table. ^ 

During this time the House had been considering the 
Missouri Question independently. The House committee, of 
which Mr. Lowndes was chairman, and to which had been 
referred the Missouri constitution, presented a report on No- 
vember 23rd advising the admission of Missouri. This report 
made mention of the objectionable free negro clause in the 



* Annals of Cong., pp. 10, 440. 

•/bid., p. 26f.; 31ff. 

^ Ibid., p. 41. 

*IMd., pp. 45. 116, 641f. 



292 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

twenty -sixth section of article three of the Missouri constitution 
but said that such a provision existed in the laws of at least 
one state, Delaware, and that discrimination was made every- 
where between whites and blacks regarding voting and jury 
service. It further advised that such questions as these were 
judicial questions and not legislative ones.^ This report was 
accompanied by a resolution of admittance which after being 
read the second time was referred to the committee of the 
whole. The Lowndes resolution was debated in the committee 
of the whole and before the House from December 6th to the 
13th and was finally rejected for engrossment by a vote of 
seventy-nine to ninety-three."' The first phase of the struggle 
leading up to the second Missouri Compromise had ended. 
The northern majority in the House had not only succeeded in 
preventing the admission of Missouri during 1820, but had 
put a doubt in the hearts of Missouri's supporters that the 
State would not be admitted even during that Congress. 

When Missouri received news of the new Missouri struggle 
in Congress and of the defeat of the Lowndes resolution in the 
House, the press and the people of the State took a firm but 
pessimistic attitude. The expressions of public opinion were 
strangely neither boastful nor defiant. Never did Missouri 
more calmly and determinedly analyze a condition critical to 
herself and to the Nation than at this time. Never was a people 
more united, more of one thought in their convictions, than 
were Missourians during the winter of 1820-1821. They re- 
garded Missouri as a state, and, whether or not Congress passed 
an act of admission, were determined that she would never 
again become a territory unless force was used. They thought 
that Missouri had acted legally when a state constitution was 
formed and adopted and a state government was established. 
They saw nothing in Missouri's constitution that was contrary 
to the United States constitution, but, they said, if by chance 
there were an illegal provision in it then the interpretation of 
this was a judicial and not a legislative function. They were 
convinced that the northern members of Congress were trying 



• Am. State Papers, Misc., II. 625. 
'• Ibid., p. 670. 



Second Missouri Compromise. 293 

to embarrass Missouri, increase the extent of free soil, and im- 
pose their will on the slave states.^"* 

While the Missouri press was full of editorials expressing 
these views, only one utterance is preserved today that issued 
from a judicial body. The St. Louis county circuit court on 
December 18, 1820, resolved that "The state government was 
not only theoretically formed, hut in full and constitiUional opera- 
tion, as regarded the constitution of the United States and that 
of the State of Missouri." ^^ 

Such convictions were not based merely on hasty and 
natural inclination but were founded on full information of the 
debates in Congress and were in accord with the many public 
letters of Barton and Benton, which appeared in Missouri 
newspapers. Benton wrote to the editor of the Missouri 
Intelligencer on November 22nd, that the northern restriction- 
ists in the House would oppose Missouri on the pretext of the 
free negro and mulatto clause "when almost every state in the 
Union, even the free states themselves, have the same pro- 
vision, as will be freely shown in the course of the debates 
here." ^^ And on the same date Benton wrote to the Enquirer 
in part as follows: 

"Barton, Scott, and myself have searched the laws of the dififerent states, 
and found provisions on this subject [the free negro and mulatto clause] which 
will make a fine contrast with the speeches of some of the northern members." '• 

On December 19th, Benton again wrote the Intelligencer and 
stated that "all the friends of Missouri here consider her to be 
a State in point of fact and in point of right; and expect her to 
go on calmly and firmly with the operations of her government, 
preserving all the points of relationship with the government of 
the United States which her anomalous position will permit 
of." 1* 

On December 3rd, Barton wrote the St. Louis Enquirer 
that New York was leading the restrictionists and that "most 
of the northern and northwestern members chime in; and if 

'»» St. Charles Mo., Jan. 13, 1821; St. Louis Enq., Dec. 23, 1820, Jan. 20, 
27, 1821; {St. Louis) Mo. Gaz., Dec. 20, 27, 1820; Jan. 10, Feb. 7, 1821. 
" Niles Reg., Feb. 3, 1821. 
" Mo. InielL, Jan. 1, 1821. 
>• St. Louis Enq., Dec. 23, 1820. 
"Mo. Intell.. Jan. 29, 1821. C/.. St. Louis Enq., Jan. 21, 1821. 



294 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

I am not misinformed, some of the cabinet aid and abet the 
enemies of our rights — We should (not) be surprised after four 
years to see our next President riding into the City of Wash- 
ington, not on a white horse, or on an ass's colt, but on a free 
negro or mulatto .... but if we should be rejected, I hope 
Missouri has spirit and energy enough to adhere to her con- 
stitution in respect to the disputed point, and if it must 
go down, to go down with it." ^^ 

Having the backing of the Senate and of nearly half of 
the House, endorsed by the Executive and supposedly by the 
judiciary, convinced of the justice of their cause and of the 
injustice attempted to be hoisted on them, and guided by their 
public men and statesmen, Missouri had no hesitancy in taking 
a firm stand for her state constitution and her state government. 
To have acted otherwise would either have branded her inhabit- 
ants as cowards or have revealed a strong anti-slavery or 
restrictionist feeling in the State. If Congress had not finally 
passed an act of admission the situation in Missouri might have 
become critical.^® 

The Christmas holidays of 1820 had barely ended when the 
Missouri Question was again before the House. This time the 
subject was considered in a new form: Was Missouri a state 
or a territory? And what was the condition of the Federal 
judiciary in Missouri? Three memorials from the legislature 
of Missouri had been presented to the House. The debate 
there turned on the point as to whether the Journal of the 
House should record these memorials as coming from the State 
or the Territory of Missouri. The first two weeks in January 
were spent in debating these points and it was decided to enter 
the memorials as being simply from Missouri. ^^ 

The Senate resolution of admission was read the second 
time on January 15th in the House and was then referred to the 
committee of the whole. While this resolution was up for 
discussion another resolution was introduced by Mr. Eustis 



"St. Louis Enq., Dec. 30. 1820; Mo. Intell.. Jan. 15, 1821. C/., letter from 
"One of Missouri's Senators to Congress" (probably Barton), in Mo. Intell., Jan. 
29, 1821. 

'• C/., Jefferson's Writings. X. 175ff, letter to Gallatin, dated Dec. 26, 1820. 

" Annals, pp. 73-863. 



Second Missouri Compromise. 295 

admitting Missouri on a certain (?) day provided the free negro 
and mulatto clause had been expunged from the Missouri con- 
stitution on or before that day. This last resolution was de- 
feated for engrossment by a vote of six to one hundred and 
forty-six. ^^ One effort having been made and lost to strike 
out the proviso in the Senate's resolution, the following proviso 
to that resolution was introduced by Mr. Foot: 

"Provided, That it shall be taken as a fundamental condition, upon which 
the said State is incorporated in the Union, that so much of the 26th section of 
the 3rd article of the constitution which has been submitted to Congress, as de- 
clares it shall be the duty of the General Assembly 'to prevent free negroes and 
mulattoes from coming to, or settling in, this State, under any pretext what- 
soever, shall be expunged, within two years from the passage of this resolution, 
by the General Assembly of Missouri, in the manner prescribed for amending said 
constitution." " 

Mr. Storrs moved an amendment to Mr. Foot's proviso, which 
was, to strike out all of the latter after the word "Union" and 
in lieu thereof insert the following: 

"And to be of perpetual obligation on the said State, (in faith whereof this 
resolution is passed by Congress,) that no law shall ever be enacted by the said 
State impairing or contravening the rights, privileges, or immunities, secured to 
citizens of the United States: And provided, further. That the Legislature acting 
under the constitution already adopted in Missouri as a State, shall as a conven- 
tion, (for which purpose the consent of Congress is hereby granted,) declare their 
assent by a public act to the said condition before the next session of Congress, 
and transmit to Congress an attested copy of such act, by the first day of the 
said session." " 

This resolution of Mr. Storrs' was lost by a vote of eighty to 
sixty-one and a similar one offered by M. Hackley was lost by 
a vote of seventy to sixty-six. Mr. Cobb then moved to strike 
out all of Mr. Foot's amendment after the word "Union" and 
insert the following: 

"That the Legislature of the State of Missouri shall pass no law impairing 
the privileges and immunities secured to the citizens of each State, under the first 
clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United 
States." 

This amendment was lost by a vote of seventy-four to sixty- 
five and Mr. Foot's was also lost.^^ A number of amendments 
was then proposed similar to either the Foot, Storrs, Cobb, or 
Senate proviso, and all were defeated. Mr. Clay seeing that all 



i* Ibid., pp. 942ff. 
" lUd., pp. 983ff. 
«» IMd., p. 990. 
•' Ibid., p. 1002. 



296 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

effort at amendment had failed, and desirous of settling the 
question, moved to refer the Senate's resolution to a committee 
of thirteen members. This motion was agreed to and the 
thirteen members were appointed — eight of whom were from 
free states and the chairman of which was Clay.^^ 

This committee reported a resolution of admission to the 
House on February 10th, which was similar to the one finally 
adopted. The two points of difference were that this original 
Clay resolution did not refer to the free negro and mulatto pro- 
vision by clause, section and article, but simply stated that 
Missouri should not pass laws preventing any description of 
persons from coming to and settling in Missouri, who were 
citizens of other States; and that it contained a proviso, later 
cut out, which stated that nothing in this resolution was to 
impair the exercise by Missouri of any right constitutionally 
exercised by the original States.^* After lengthy debate the 
Clay select committee's report was reported on unfavorably 
by the committee of the whole.^* The House by the close vote 
of eighty-six to eighty-three refused to concur with this report 
and then, equally strangely, by a vote of eighty to eighty-three, 
refused to advance the Senate's resolution as thus amended to 
a third reading.^^ After voting by one hundred and one to 
sixty to reconsider this last vote, the House again voted down 
the Senate's amended resolution by eighty-two to eighty-eight.^^ 

This definitely sealed the fate of the Senate's resolution 
in the House. It seemed that the northern representatives 
were to triumph and Missouri's admission would be delayed 
until a new Congress convened. A number of compromises 
had been proposed in the House and all had been defeated. 
The determination of the slavery restrictionists and of others 
to defeat Missouri had succeeded and that State's future was 
even darker than it had been in December. In Missouri, how- 
ever, the attitude of the people was one of determined con- 
fidence in the continuance of their State government. Bitter 



" Ibid., p. 1027. 
"Ibid., p. 1080. 
"Ibid., p. 1114. 
"Ibid., p. 1116. 
"Ibid., pp. 1120. 1146. 



Second Missouri Compromise. 297 

resentment was also felt that Congress would attempt to act 
so perfidiously. The editor of the St. Louis Enquirer wrote: 
"And the pretext for this (opposition) is that the rights of a 
few vagabond negroes may possibly be infringed ! . . . . The 
rejection of Missouri, not the admission, is the object to be 
accomplished, and the clause respecting free negroes suffices 
for the purpose . . . . At all events, let us by a mild, tem- 
perate, but firm demeanor, shew that we are satisfied with the 
justice of our cause." ^^ 

The determined confidence of Missouri in her state govern- 
ment was forcibly set forth in an editorial that appeared in the 
St. Louis Enquirer of March 10, 1821. These extracts illustrate 
the tone of that editorial : "It is a remarkable fact, not generally 
known abroad perhaps, that the monumental Missouri question, 
nowhere in the United States, is looked upon so calmly and 
dispassionately as in Missouri .... Our state government is 
in full and complete operation .... The territorial govern- 
ment is almost forgotten . . . . It is (a) matter of fact that 
we are a state. We both see and feel its operations .... It 
is very manifest, therefore, that such change (back to a ter- 
ritory) can never take place .... We could not, for instance 
by an act of ours, get back the territorial governor and judges, 
and the senate of the United States, entertaining their present 
opinion, would of course not reappoint them .... When 
the question of restriction was first agitated in congress, it 
excited much feeling and alarm in the then territory [of Mis- 
souri] .... Thoroughly understanding their rights, the People 
of Missouri yet waited with a most forbearing patience .... 
Bounds were, however, set to forbearance, and preparations 
had commenced for calling a Convention without the consent 
of Congress. That consent having been given .... Mis- 
souri proceeded with her characteristic moderation, order and 
firmness, to form a constitution of government .... In the 
organization of the new government, so far from manifesting 
any disposition ever to retrace her steps, the barely possible 
event (for such it was deemed) of our constitution being re- 
jected, was anticipated and provided against. Care was taken 



»' Feb. 17. 1821. 



298 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

to appoint no man to office, whose opinion was not known to be 
in favor of the unqualified sovereignty of the state. An explicit 
assurance to that effect was required of the judges — and it may 
safely be affirmed that in no township of the state could any man 
avowing a different opinion, have obtained the appointment of 
constable. The present prevailing calmness of the public 
mind ..... must not be misunderstood as the effect of doubt 
as to our rights, intimidation at opposition or indifference as to 
the result. It is the calmness of fixed determination. We 
know we are an independent state, and are resolved to remain 
so ... . The People of Missouri have also become disgusted 
with the proceedings of the present session of Congress, and 
think it trifling to dispute with men, who set all candor and 
fair reasoning at defiance." ^^ The tone of this editorial was 
representative of what appeared in other Missouri newspapers. 
The people of Missouri were actually less concerned over their 
admission than were the members of Congress. Missouri had 
a state constitution and a state government, and unless the 
complexion of the United States Senate changed there seemed 
little reason for thinking the State would revert to a territory. 
Missourians also took pride in their determined and secure 
attitude towards the north. There is little doubt that the 
peculiar position occupied by Missouri in 1820 and 1821 did 
much to knit closely the early pioneers of those days. Intense 
state pride in Missouri during those years almost reached the 
heights of patriotism. It speaks well for the broadminded- 
ness and loyalty of Missourians that in 1861-65 they enlisted 
over 100,000 strong in the army of a Nation that forty years 
before had so perfidiously played low politics in refusing them 
admission into the Union. 

The perfidiousness of Congress in seizing upon the free 
negro clause in Missouri's constitution was commented on by 
Barton in a letter dated February 11, 1821, to the Missouri 
Intelligencer and to the St. Louis Enquirer. "^^ He wrote in part: 



«'Cf., also Mo. Gaz., Jan. 10. Feb. 7, 1821; St. Charles Mo.. March 24, 1821; 
Mo. Intell.. Feb. 19. March 19. 26. 1821. 

"Mo. Intell., April 16, 1821; St. Louis Enq.. March 24, 1821. 



Second Missouri Compromise. 299 

"You have observed, that the free negro clause in our constitution is made 
their pretext of opposition, though I presume no honest, intelligent man believes 
this to be their true reason, or would believe so, if they had not unveiled themselves 
.... These free negro apostles indulge the delusive hope that a revolution of 
sentiment can be effected in Missouri. They are led to this belief .... that 
large minorities in favor of restriction exist in each county! [i. e., in Missouri.) 
Encouraged by such hopes, and being wholly free from the embarassments of 
political honesty and public faith, the leaders in the House of Representatives 
are endeavoring to secure to themselves the benefits of an open question, and 
a new struggle in the succeeding Congress. It is not believed, however, that 
the honest republicans of the north, thus advised of their (the restrictionists] 
ultimate objects, will go with them through their criminal course." 

The defeat of the amended Senate resolution admitting 
Missouri did not delay the continued discussion of the Mis- 
souri Question. This question was, however, presented in a 
new form on February 14th and for that day surpassed in 
nation-wide interest even the counting of the presidential elec- 
toral votes. Missouri had in conformity with both state and 
national law cast her votes for President and Vice President 
and had three electoral votes to be counted by Congress. The 
question arose whether these three votes could be officially 
counted since Missouri had not been admitted. Clay reported 
a compromise resolution whereby the results of the election 
were to be stated in two ways — one by including Missouri's 
votes, and one by omitting these votes. Clay explained the 
policy of this by stating that since there was opposition to 
recognizing Missouri as a state and since the votes of Missouri 
would not effect the results of the elections, he thought it wise 
to avoid dispute and to adopt the resolution. The discussion 
following this report was remarkable for its violence. However, 
the resolution was adopted by a vote of ninety-five to fifty .^° 
This left the question of admitting Missouri an open one before 
both houses. 

The Senate was the first to take action. A resolution of 
admission was introduced by Mr. Roberts, which contained 
the proviso that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section 
of the third article of Missouri's constitution should be modified 
as soon as the provisions of that constitution would admit, 
so that this clause would not be applicable to any persons who 
were citizens of the United States and that until this clause 



*> Annals, pp. 1147-1166. 



300 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

was so modified no law should be passed in conformity with its 
import.^^ After several amendments had been proposed, this 
resolution was rejected by a vote of nineteen to twenty-four 
on February 21st.^2 

On the same day that the Senate rejected the Roberts' 
resolution, the House again took the Missouri Question under 
consideration. On the following day Clay proposed that a 
House committee of twenty-three members be appointed to 
act jointly with a Senate committee, which joint committee 
was to consider the question of Missouri's admission and of Mis- 
souri's present condition .^^ Clay's proposal was adopted and the 
House committee was selected — Clay being chairman. The Senate 
concurred in the proposition on the 24th inst., and appointed 
seven of its members to act with the House committee.^^ The 
joint committee reported on the 26th and this report, known 
as the Second Missouri Compromise, was adopted without 
change by the House on that day, by the Senate on the 28th 
inst., and was approved by the President on March 2nd.^^ The 
full text of this compromise report, of which Clay was the 
author, was as follows: 

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled. That Missouri shall be admitted into this 
Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, upon 
the fundamental condition, that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of 
the third article of the constitution submitted on the part of said State to Congress 
shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law, and that no law 
shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizen of either of the States 
in this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and 
immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United 
States: Provided, That the Legislature of the said State, by a solemn public act, 
shall declare the assent of the said State to the said fundamental condition, and 
shall transmit to the President of the United States, on or before the fourth 
Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon the receipt 
whereof the President, by proclamation, shall annoimce the fact: whereupon, 
and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of the 
said state into this Union, shall be considered as complete." 

Writing of this compromise to the editors of the Missouri 
Intelligencer and the St. Louis Enquirer, Barton said: 



»■ Annals, p. 351ff. 

" Ibid., p. 364. 

" Ibid., p. 1219. 

" Ibid., p. 382. 

»» Ibid., pp. 383, 388ff; pp. 1236fr. 

•'Stat, at Large, 2nd Sess. 16 Cong., Ill, 645; Annals, p. 1228. 



Second Missouri Compromise. 301 

"This promise in writing obligatory required of our General Assembly Is 
precisely tantamount to their official oaths to support the Constitution of the 
United States, which they have taken in obedience to our state Constitution 
.... What power Congress has to dictate any condition, however nugatory 
and unmeaning, our State must decide for itself. I believe, however, no better 
terms could be got from the north; and if they do abandon their free negro crusade, 
they at the same time dictate to, and humiliate Missouri; which, after losing 
their removed restriction, is some satisfaction to them." " 



"Mo. IntelL, April 16, 1821 (letter dated Feb. 27. 1821); St. Louis Enq., 
March 31, 1821. 



CHAPTER XL 

STATEHOOD IN THE UNION. 

The news of the passage of the resolution providing for 
the admission of Missouri was received by Missourians with 
joy. This joy was, however, founded mainly not on the pleasant 
anticipation of final statehood in the Union within a few months 
or on a relief from suspense regarding what might have been 
Missouri's fate, but was founded on the defeat of the eastern 
slavery restrictionists. Missouri took more delight in seeing 
her eastern enemies defeated than in the good she obtained 
from her victory. The latter was appreciated but the former 
was uppermost in the minds of Missourians. The editor of 
the St. Louis Enquirer on May 26th made the following com- 
ment in this connection: 

"The news of the admission of the State was received in this place with 
evident manifestations of pleasure — it beamed in the countenances of all, and was 
a subject of mutual congratulation — But there were no 'boastings,' or 'bonfires;' 
the people here knew too well what was due to propriety and their own dignity — 
It was for the second triumph of the Union and Missouri, that they felt rejoiced." 

These people had for years been heckled, opposed, and in- 
sulted by eastern Congressmen and eastern newspapers, until 
mere victory over the restrictionists was more desired than the 
fruits of victory. A most concrete illustration of this almost 
revengeful attitude was a public dinner given on April 10th in 
Franklin, Missouri. 

This dinner was "in celebration of our late triumph over 
eastern policy and eastern artifice. We enjoy the right of self- 
government, and will be admitted into the Union on a condition 
perfectly nugatory and foolish." ^ A large number of toasts 
were given of which the following were representative: 

"The 27th day of February — Missouri will hail it as the day of her deliverance 
from artful and ambitious politicians." 

"The Senate of the United States — Our buckler in the late conflict." 
"The House of Representatives — A majority virtuous." 



' Mo. Intell., April 16, 1821. 

(302) 



Statehood in the Union. 303 

"The Constitution of the United States — The meaning cannot be perverted 
to answer the purpose of eastern politicians, or mal{e free negroes citizens of 
Missouri." 

"The Constitution of Missouri — Formed by men understanding their powers, 
it conflicts with no superior instrument, and will forever defy Eastern acuteness." 

Accompanying this spirit of jubilance over the defeat of 
the east was a feeling of contempt and hatred of the restriction- 
ists in Congress. This found expression in newspaper articles 
and in public speeches. One of the most striking of these was 
a poem which appeared in the editorial column of the St. Charles 
Missourian of May 9th. The following stanzas were selected 
from this piece: 

"A Song for the Special Use of Certain Members of Congress. 

Tune — "Paddy's Wedding." 

How shrewd are we, who plainly see. 
And If we don't we "guess" it O, 
The way to shine and pockets Une, 
And all men will confess it O ; 
A negro slave we scorned to have. 
So sold them for the dollars O; 
Nutmegs of wood are just as good 
If — no detection follows O. 
Tid re i, &c. 

Then let's Join in the dance, we'll caper 

& prance 
With Luce and with Judy quite cheerly O, 
The African fair though dusklsh they are 
We cannot but cherish sincerely O. 
Our citizens rights exertion invites 
We'll "aid and assist and abet them" O. 
Then buzza for the scheme! their rights 

we'll redeem 
Or go to the devil to get them O 
Tid re i, &c. 

COMUS." 

There is evidence to believe that the slavery restriction- 
ists in Missouri aided the eastern and northern members of 
Congress. At least this report appeared in the National In- 
telligencer of March 10th and in the St. Louis Enquirer of April 
4th. The former contained the following article: 

"We believe, indeed, that such as opposed the admission of Missouri, in order 
to compel her, by refusing to admit her on any other terms, to introduce into her 
constitution a clause inhibiting slavery, labored under the disadvantage of in- 
correct information, and of a misapprehension of the effect of the course which they 
proposed. The private letters from Missouri ought not so much to have been 
relied on as the unanimous declaration of her authorized agents." 



304 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

And this caused the following comment in the Enquirer: 

"For sixteen years a system of secret communication has been carried on 
from this place to the seat of the general government. It has attacked the char- 
acters of individuals, the rights of property, and the best interests of the coimtry. 
Nothing virtuous, honorable, just, or advantageous to the country could escape 
it, and every department of the general government was made a reservoir of lies 
and poison. — Finally, this indefatigable agent of mischief has attacked the sov- 
ereignty of the state of Missouri, and has undertaken to array a majority of con- 
gress against her rights by imposing on the members from the non-sl*veholding 
states the most unparalleled falsehoods. Secret communications have been made 
to effect this object, stating that the Restrictionlsts were getting into power in 
Missouri, and that the majority of the people were now in their favor. Various 
information has given intelligence of their infernal work, and there rests not a 
doubt but that Missouri is largely indebted to it for all the humiliation to which 
she has been subjected this winter. 

A MISSOURIAN." 

To Missourians the hero of the second Missouri Com- 
promise and of Missouri's triumph over the eastern restric- 
tionlsts was Henry Clay. To him they justly gave the credit 
of obtaining the passage of the admission act. His name and 
deeds were toasted and lauded in speech and verse throughout 
the State. 

Closely related to the joy of Missourians in their triumph 
over the East was their appreciation of the emptiness of^the 
fundamental solemn-public-act condition contained in the 
Missouri resolution of Congress. As one Missouri writer 
succinctly expressed himself: "the result of the act of Congress 
appears to be absurd in the extreme. Our legislature is called 
upon to annihilate a particular clause in our constitution, or 
pass a law that will be tantamount to such annihilation .... 
They [Congress] require the legislature to do that which, under 
the constitution, they have not the right to exercise." ^ The 
same writer continued: "the legislature may enact a law de- 
claring no law passed in conformity to the clause aforesaid [the 
free negro and mulatto clause] in the state constitution shall 
be binding; but .... It would be a mere legislative act, sub- 
ject to be repealed by the next succeeding legislature .... [after 
the President has admitted Missouri] The State will then be a 
member of the Union — the legislature of the succeeding session 
may repeal the law so enacted under the requisition of Congress, 
and we may be precisely in the same situation as it we had been 



• Mo. Gaz.. April 4. 1821. article by "Philo." 



Statehood in the Union. 306 

admitted without so much ceremony .... Upon the whole, 
I conclude, that the friends of Missouri, have triumphed over 
their opponents — and they must have seen and known the full 
bearing of the law that was passed, and knew that we should 
be admitted linthout, in fact, any restriction, though seemingly 
otherwise." ' The editor of the St. Louis Enquirer commented 
in a similar strain on the emptiness of the solemn-public-act 
condition: "Now if there be anything in the constitution of 
Missouri incompatible with the rights of citizens in other states, 
how can the legislature expunge the inconsistency, or sit in 
judgment on its constitutionality? .... The leaders of the 
north will now leave Washington with the same feelings which 
the disappointed ambassadors of the Hartford Convention 
experienced some five or six years ago." * 

The inhabitants of Missouri were not only pleased with 
their triumph over the East and with the ridiculousness of the 
solemn-public-act condition, but above all they took pride in 
their having maintained a consistent position of independent 
statehood since the adoption of the Missouri constitution of 
1820 and the organization of the State government in that year. 
This position had been repeatedly attacked in Congress but 
was never given up by Missouri and her representatives. Public 
opinion in Missouri was unanimous on the point that Missouri 
was a state, had a state constitution and state government, 
could not become a territory unless force was used, and that 
whether admitted or not by Congress she would continue to 
exercise all the functions of a state except those national duties 
and privileges that centered in Washington. Not once during 
the winter of 1820-21 were these principles compromised on the 
part of Missouri and care was taken that no act of her repre- 
sentatives could be interpreted even by implication as derogatory 
to these principles. That this attitude finally was impliedly 
endorsed by Congress was a source of much satisfaction to 
Missourians. 



*IMd., April 18. 1821; cf., Ibid., March 28. 1821. an editorial. 

• March 24, 1821. See also editorial in St. Charles Missourian, Apr. 11, 1821. 



M S— 20 



306 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

The editor of the 5/. Louis Enquirer on April 28, 1821, 
summarized conditions relating to these contentions as fol- 
lows: 

"The first thing that strikes us in the resolution is, that it now admits 
by fair, direct and necessary implication, that Missouri is a sovereign and in- 
dependent state. It admits this by treating with the legislature of the state, 
as now organized under the state constitution, and admitting its authority to 
enter into a compact with the general government as fully as any other state 
could do. 

The act to be done by Missouri has nothing in it derogatory to her state 
sovereignty. She is not required to repeal, expunge, or alter any part of her 
constitution. She is only requested so to construe her present constitution as 
not to impair the rights of any citizen of any one of the states 

The deferred admission is unpleasant to our feelings; but really, we see no 
practical inconvenience resulting from it. The state authorities are in full opera- 
tion; all their acts are valid; .... We say that there can be no doubt about 
the vaUdity of all the acts of the State authorities; and our position is maintained 
by principle, and by practice, and by the admission of Congress. — 

1. By principle: because Missouri having had the consent of Congress to 
become a state government at a certain time and place, and having framed it 
in the way consented to, became, by that act, a sovereign state, and needs no 
second consent of congress upon the same point. — 

2. By practice: because almost every new state which has been admitted 
into the Union, put their state authorities, executive, legislative and judicial, 
into operation before the last form of admission was gone through; all the acts 
done by them in such intervals have been held vaUd — and if vaUd for an interval 
of one or two months, they are equally so for as many, or any number of years. 

3. By the admission of Congress: because in the very resolution, now under 
examination, the sovereign, independent, and federal character of Missouri is 
recognized by the fact of treating with her in those characters. 

We perceive some error, as we believe, in the understanding of some of our 
citizens about this resolution; they speak of it as the act of our enemies, as a 
thing imposed upon us by the enemies of INIissouri. Such is not the fact. The 
resolution was not the work of the enemies of Missouri; they opposed it, and would 
rejoice to see it opposed here: but it is the work of the devoted friends of Mis- 
souri and of the Union, brought forward by the zeal and abiUties of Henry Clay, 
and supported in one house or the other by one or more members of every state 
In the Union, except Ohio." 

One of the most interesting side-lights on the struggle in 
Congress leading up to the Second Missouri Compromise re- 
lated to the status of Missouri's senators and representatives 
elected to Congress in 1820. This was also an important ques- 
tion to Missourians of that day. When Senators Barton and 
Benton, of Missouri, arrived in Washington in November, 
1820, they were either denied their seats in the Senate or policy 
dictated their not demanding seats. Scott, however, whose 
term as Territorial Delegate from Missouri had not expired if 
Missouri was still a Territory and who had also been elected 
in 1820 as Congressman from Missouri State, took his seat in 



« 



Statehood in the Union. 307 

the House, presented the Missouri constitution to that body, 
and made several motions. On having been asked in what 
capacity he so acted, Scott replied "as a member from the state 
of Missouri." ^ PoHcy, however, dictated his withdrawal from 
his seat. Sometime toward the end of the session, probably 
after the passage of the Missouri resolution, Barton, Benton 
and Scott, all took their seats in Congress as Senators and 
Representatives from the State of Missouri.^ Scott was at- 
tacked in Missouri for having acted as a delegate of the Terri- 
tory of Missouri. The editor of the St. Louis Enquirer replied 
to this charge with warmth.^ 

Scott also replied on May 5th, in a letter dated "State of 
Missouri, Ste. Genevieve, April 12, 1821:" 

Sir: — .... I never did act as delegate, during the late session of congress. 
I took my seat in no other capacity than as the representative from the state of 
Missouri. I had seen other members from new states allowed that privilege, 
before the admission of their state into the Union I believed the repre- 
sentative from the state of Missouri entitled to the same privilege, and unhes- 
itatingly took my seat, presented the constitution of the state, and .... On 
being afterwards asked, by what right I made these motions, and In what capacity 
I acted? I answered, as a member from the state of Missouri. My right to act 
in that capacity being then, for the first time, doubted by some, and not wishing 
prematurely to bring up the question of our state rights, or embarrass our friends 
.... I Instantly withdrew from my seat; .... The fact that I maintained the 
ground that I was a member from the state, and not a delegate, is further proven 
in this, that congress made a special appropriation for the payment of the sen- 
ators and representative from Missouri, which was quite unnecessary as to me, 
if I had acted as delegate, which I had the right to do if I had chosen so far to 
compromit the independence and rights of the state — for I had one session to 
serve as delegate imder my former election. 

My having been entered on the journals of congress as the delegate from the 
territory, was not my act, but the act of the officer, who seeing me In my place, 
and not having official knowledge of ]\Iissouri as a state, (the constitution not 
having been then presented,) entered me down as the delegate; — but in all the 

calls from the chair .... for the delegate from Missouri I never once 

answered. 

It is true that I did present the constitution of the state of Missouri, and move 
the reference of our land law; these were the only two acts I did In the house 
during the session, and my reasons for so doing were these — first, I believed I 
had the right so to do, as a member; and secondly, because I could not get those 
things done by others. But I am conscious that no portion of my conduct has 
ever authorized even an inference that I considered or represented Missouri as 
a territory; nor could any act of mine bear a construction prejudicial to the state 
pretensions or the state rights of Missouri. 

With much respect, 

your obedient servant, 
JOHN SCOTT." 

»S/. Louis Enq., May 5, 1821, letter of Scott dated April 12, 1821. 
* St. Louis Enq., March 24, 1821. The Annals were silent on this. 
'April 28, 1821. 



308 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Although Barton, Benton and Scott did not sit in this 
session of Congress until toward the close, they received the 
same pay for their past year's services that was allowed other 
Congressmen. In the general appropriation bill for the sup- 
port of the government, approved March 3, 1821, special men- 
tion was made on this point as follows: "For the compensation 
of the senators and representatives elected by Missouri, six 
thousand dollars." ^ The other members of Congress were 
provided for in a lump appropriation clause. Thus while Mis- 
souri was not officially regarded by Congress as a State, was not 
admitted into the Union until August, 1821, and was not al- 
lowed representatives in Congress until March, 1821, still her 
two senators and one representative drew salary from the 
United States government through act of Congress for over a 
year prior to August, 1821, i. e. practically from the passage 
of the Enabling Act in 1820. 

Although the Missouri admission act was received with 
general favor in the State, no haste was advocated except in 
St. Charles and St. Louis counties in complying with the solemn- 
public-act condition.^ In these two counties, however, a demand 
was made for an extra session of the general assembly and in 
St. Charles county a petition was circulated by members of the 
legislature requesting the governor to call such a session at an 
early date. Rumors circulated that the question of a state 
bank was back of this demand for immediate statehood in the 
Union. An article appeared in the St. Charles Missourian over 
the penname "A Constituent" opposing the calling of an extra 
session in 1821, stating that there was no urgent need for such 
a session, and declaring that the expense of one, which would 
reach ten thousand dollars, could ill be borne at that time.^" 
However, despite the absence of any general demand for an 
extra session and the depleted condition of the State treasury, 
Governor McNair issued the following proclamation: 



• Stat, at Large, III. 628. 

'Mo. Intell., May 7. 1821, editorial. 

»• Mo. Intell., May 21. 1821, from the St. Charles Mo. 



Statehood in the Union. 309 

"By The Governor of The State of Missouri 
A PROCLAMATION. 

Whereas, great and weighty matters, claiming the consideration of the General 
Assembly of the State of Missouri, form an extraordinary occasion for convening 
them: I DO, by these presents, appoint, Monday the fourth day of June next, 
for their meeting at the town of St. Charles, the temporary seat of government 
for this state: Hereby requiring the respective Senators and Representatives 
then and there to assemble in General Assembly, In order to receive such com- 
munications as shall then be made to them, and to consult and determine on such 
measiu-es as in their wisdom may be deemed meet for the welfare of the state. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto aflQxed my private seal, (there being 
no seal of state yet provided,) Given under my hand at St. Charles, the twentieth 
day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty- 
one, and of the independence of the state of Missouri the first. 

A. M'Nair 
By the Governor. 

Joshua Barton, 

Secretary of State." >> 

This proclamation met with a poor reception in the Boone's 
Lick country. On the day the proclamation was printed in 
the Missouri Intelligencer an editorial appeared in that paper 
criticizing the calling of an extra session. The editor stated that 
he was not informed what the "great and weighty matters" 
were that necessitated such quick legislation; that the first 
intimation and the actual receipt of the proclamation at Franklin, 
had been almost simultaneous; that no petitions in Howard or 
the surrounding counties had been circulated; and that as far 
as he could learn, no demand had been made for such a session 
except in St. Charles and St. Louis. Public meetings held in 
western Missouri to consider this question sustained the general 
attitude taken by the editor of the Intelligencer. A large 
gathering of this kind, which met at Franklin, adopted the 
following resolutions: first, that a special session was needed 
but that it should have been called at a time so that it would 
have merged with the regular fall session; second, that laws 
interfering with the collection of debts, etc., were unreasonable; 
third, that the establishment of a state bank then was opposed; 
fourth, that the general assembly should consider at the special 
session only the admission act of Congress; and fifth, that these 
resolutions be sent to the representatives of Howard and Cooper 
counties and to the governor. In a comment either by the 
reporter or editor it was stated that these resolutions "are the 



"Mo. Intell., May 7. 1821. 



310 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

sentiments of nine tenths of the electors of counties west of 
Cedar and the river Osage." ^^ Notices of other meetings are 
met with and although the people of Missouri appear to have 
favored complying with the condition of Congress, there was a 
widespread feeling that there was plenty of time to do this. 
There was also a fear of the establishment of a state bank. 
Combined with this was an unwillingness on the part of many 
to burden the almost empty treasury with the expense of an 
extra sitting of the legislature. Notwithstanding these out- 
spoken criticisms of the purpose of Governor McNair's proc- 
lamation, the prospect of early admission into the Union was 
contemplated with much pleasure by the general body of 
citizens. ^^ 

In pursuance of the proclamation the general assembly 
convened at St. Charles on June 4th, and a long message was 
delivered by Governor McNair.^"* In speaking of the act of 
Congress, he said: "I deem it proper to recommend the im- 
mediate consideration of that subject, and the passage of such 
legislative act as is required by the resolution ; carefully avoiding 
at the same time, everything that might impair our political 
rights, or draw in question the dignity and independent char- 
acter of the state .... Our unsettled political condition has al- 
ready prevented thousands from making our country their home." 
He called attention to the financial depression of the State 
and recommended measures be considered to relieve it. He 
stated that his position was well known on the question of 
amendments to the constitution and urged action on this 
subject at the special session. He also referred to the deficit 
in the State's revenue and suggested that new revenue measures 
be passed and that retrenchment in government expenses be 
followed, and for this and other reasons that the session be 
short. 



"Mo. InlelL, May 21, 1821. The meeting was held on May 19th. 
"Mo. Intell., May 21, 28, 1821. 

>« Mo. Intel!., June 18, 1821. Henry S. Geyer of St. Louis was elected speaker 
on the resignation of Mr. Caldwell. 




Ti:\Il'()RAl<^ CAl'irol. OI- THK STATK OF MISSOl RI AT ST. CHARI.KS. 
Ill use frciin iS:i td 1X26. C<)iirt<-s\ of Ilmi. Cornelius Roacli. 



Statehood in the Uriion. 311 

The resolution of Congress was at once referred to a com- 
mittee of the whole House on the affairs of the State. '^ Mr. 
Ball submitted sundry resolutions expressive of the sense of 
the Committee on the subject, and Messrs. Geyer, Heath and 
Smith severally submitted bills for the same purpose. After 
considerable debate Mr. Ball's resolutions were changed into 
a report. On motion of Mr. Bates the several propositions 
were referred to a select committee consisting of Bates, Ball, 
Rutter, Waters of Ste. Genevieve, and Alcorn. This com- 
mittee reported the Ball report together with the bill submitted 
by Geyer. The report was a long one containing over twenty- 
two hundred words. In it were reviewed the history of the 
objectionable clause in Missouri's constitution and of the 
resolution of Congress. The report closed with a recommenda- 
tion to the general assembly to pass "A Solemn Public Act," 
which act as thus reported was practically identical with the 
one finally adopted. ^^ 

The preamble to this act and the act itself were debated 
in the House, and opposition developed regarding both. Heath 
and Smith with others attempted to strike out the preamble. 
McGirk was opposed to acceding to the condition imposed by 
Congress. The main supporters of the preamble and the bill 
were Green, Ball, Alcorn, Young and Geyer. In the course of 
the debate, Geyer "stated a fact not generally known — That 
the clause mentioned in the Resolution of Congress is not the 
one concerning free negroes and mulattoes. There are but 
three principle clauses in the twenty-sixth section of the third 
article, and the only clause distinguished as a fourth — is the 
last subordinate branch of the second principal clause and 
provides that the General Assembly shall have power, to permit 
the owners of slaves to emancipate them saving the rights of 
Creditors, where the persons so emancipating will give security 
that the slave so emancipated will not become a public charge. — 
But counting the clauses of the twenty-sixth section without 
reference to the numbers thereto attached and the fourth 



'• Afo. Intell., June 18, 1821. We have been unable to obtain the journal 
of this session. Our information has been taken from the accounts of proceed- 
ings published in the various newspapers of the State. 

»• See Appendix IV. 



312 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

clause, will be that which gives the General Assembly power 
To prohibit the introduction of any slave for the purpose of 
speculation, or as an article of trade or merchandise." The 
bill and preamble were then agreed to by a large majority and 
reported from the committee of the whole without amendment. ^^ 
In this form it passed the House and was sent to the Senate. 

In the latter chamber opposition developed regarding the 
phraseology of the preamble and several clauses were stricken 
out, which, however, were not acceded to by the representatives 
in the lower chamber. A joint conference committee was then 
appointed by the two houses to confer on the subject. This 
committee succeeded in reaching an agreement. Their rec- 
ommended change in the original House bill was unimportant 
and their report was accepted by both houses. The vote in 
the House on accepting this report was forty to two, Heath and 
McGirk opposing. The vote on the final passage of the bill 
in the House was thirty-six to six. One of the nays, McGirk, 
entered the following protest: "I do most solemnly protest 
against any constitutional right which the Congress of the 
United States had to pass their resolution, approved March 
2, 1821, restricting the admission of this free, sovereign, and 
independent state into the federal Union, and of requiring of 
the State of Missouri, the condition in said restriction, con- 
tained as the price of her admission into the Union. Also 
against any constitutional right which the Legislature of this 
State had to pass their most Solemn Public Act, declaring the 
assent of this State to the fundamental condition in the said 
resolution of Congress."^* The Solemn Public Act was ap- 
proved by Governor McNair on June 26, 1821. ^^ Missouri had 
taken her last step, save one, toward admission into the Union. 

Two interesting and important questions arise in considering 
the resolution of Congress of March 2, 1821, and the solemn 
public act of Missouri of June 28, 1821. First, how did Congress 



>' Mo. Gaz., June 13, 1821; Jackson Indep. Patriot, June 30, 1821. 

'« From all the sources available, it has been impossible for us to determine 
the final vote on this bill in the Senate. 

"Afo. session laws, special 1821, pp. 9-11; Mo. Intell., July 9, 1821, regarding 
McGirk's protest; Jackson Indep. Patriot, July 7, 1821. on the voting; St. Louis 
Enq., June 23, 30, on the disagreement of the two houses. 



Statehood in the Union. 313 

seemingly err in requiring the Missouri legislature to promise 
never to enforce a certain clause in Missouri's constitution 
when Congress objected to an entirely different clause: and how 
did this apparent error remain undiscovered at that time and 
seemingly was repeated by the Missouri general assembly? 
Second, were the resolution and the public act binding on Mis- 
souri in law and practice? The former will be considered 
first. 

The resolution of Congress of March 2, 1821, in effect 
imposed on Missouri as the price of admission, a "fundamental 
condition." This "fundamental condition" stated: "that the 
fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of 
the constitution submitted on the part of said State to Con- 
gress, shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any 
law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by 
which any citizen of the States in this Union, shall be excluded 
from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities 
to which such citizen is entitled under the constitution of the 
United States." The resolution continued: ''Provided, that 
the Legislature of said State, by a solemn public act, shall 
declare the assent of the said State to the said fundamental 
condition" etc. 

According to the constitution of Missouri as printed in the 
Missouri revised statutes of 1825, 1835, 1845, 1855, and also as 
first printed in St. Louis in 1820 by I. N. Henry and Company, 
the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article 
was not the free negro and mulatto clause, which was the ob- 
jectionable clause to Congress. One writer was thus led to 
comment on this seeming blindness or error of Congress as 
follows: "And, curiously enough, the articles of the Constitu- 
tion [the Missouri constitution of 1820] enumerated in the act 
of Congress and in the resolution of the Legislature cannot by 
any human ingenuity be identified with the clauses excluding 
free negroes." ^o Professor Viles was not, however, the first 
to notice this apparent error. The Missouri historian and 
editor, Lucien Carr, writing in 1900, stated that the fourth 
clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article was really 



'• Viles, The Story of the State, in The State of Missouri, p. 20. 



314 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

the clause that empowered the legislature to permit owners of 
slaves to emancipate them, and hence could not possibly bear 
the construction put upon it.^i It remained for Professor Hodder 
to examine in a scholarly and scientific manner this widely cir- 
culated story. He was not content with perusing the revised 
statutes of Missouri but went to the Senate and House Documents 
of the second session of the sixteenth Congress, 1820-1821.22 
In these documents, printed in Washington, D. C, he found 
that the Missouri constitution of 1820 as therein set forth con- 
veniently lent itself to the construction placed upon it by 
Congress. He found that the free negro and mulatto and 
mulatto clause was the fourth indentation in the the margin of 
section twenty-six of article three, while as later printed this free 
negro clause was the first clause under the third subdivision of 
section twenty-six of article three. ^^ 

Even more conclusive proof of the accuracy of the designa- 
tion of the free negro clause by Congress is found in the Missouri 
constitution of 1820 as printed in Washington, 1820, by the 
United States Government printers — Gales and Seaton. This 
latter pamphlet, an original copy of which is now in The State 
Historical Society of Missouri, was the one used by the members 
of Congress during the 1820-1821 session. In it the free negro 
clause is the fourth indentation in the margin of section twenty- 
six of article three of the Missouri constitution. The apparent 
error of Congress becomes an accurate statement of the will 
and intention of that body. The surprising part of the whole 
affair is not. Why did Congress fail to notice its error (?)! but 
is, Why did it take nearly nine decades to discover that Congress 
had accurately stated what that body had intended to state! 

Although Congress had accurately designated the free 
negro and mulatto clause according to the Washington edition 
of the Missouri constitution, such designation was not appli- 
cable to the St. Louis edition or to the Missouri newspaper 
reprints of that document.^* It seems strange that the people 



«' Carr, An Error in Resol. of Cong. Admitting Mo. into the Union, p. 7. re- 
printed from the Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceed., (2nd ser. vol. XIII) Feb. 1900. 
" Senate Doc. 1 and House Doc. 2. 

•« Hodder, Side Lights on Mo. Camp., in Mo. Hist. Review. V. 148f. 
" Cf.. Mo. const, as printed in Mo. Intell., July 22, 1820. 



Statehood in the Union. 315 

of Missouri did not notice this latter discrepancy especially in 
view of the fact that the local newspapers had printed in full 
the Missouri constitution, the proceedings of Congress on the 
Missouri question; the report of the select committee of Con- 
gress, and the resolution of March 2, 1821. However, in no 
article, letter or editorial, that we have read, did there appear 
the slightest intimation of such an error before June ISth.^^ 
Until evidence to the contrary has been produced, we assert 
that all indirect proof points to the ignorance of the people 
of Missouri regarding this error prior to June, 1821. Although 
this ignorance or absence of observation of Missourians seems 
strange, it is by no means inexcusable. The newspaper editions 
of the constitution had appeared nearly a year before and by 
1821 were probably largely destroyed and the official edition 
had been a small one in numbers: both editions were thus in- 
accessible to perhaps ninety per cent, of the inhabitants. Fur- 
ther, it had become nation-wide information by March 2, 1821, 
that Congress objected only to the free negro and mulatto 
clause in Missouri's constitution. Those familiar with Missouri's 
constitution knew that this clause was in the twenty-sixth sec- 
tion of the third article. The resolution of March 2, 1821, by 
designating the fourth clause of this section as the objectionable 
clause did not, thereby, designate anything that would have 
stimulated examination by the average man. This natural, 
though perhaps uncritical, attitude was doubtless unconsciously 
strengthened by the logical absence of any criticism emanating 
from the statesmen at Washington on this point. The ques- 
tion at issue in Missouri was not: What does the resolution of 
Congress object to in our constitution? but was: Shall we 
conform to the resolution, and if so, are we bound by such con- 
formity? 

When the resolution of Congress was considered by the 
general assembly of Missouri, there was opposition to passing 
the solemn public act. It is impossible to say accurately how 
strong was this opposition. Some objected to the wording of 
the solemn public act, others to the entire condition imposed 



" All the newspapers published in Missouri at this time were consulted. 
There were, however, a number of missing issues in the various flies. 



316 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

by Congress. At this juncture Henry S. Geyer, Speaker of 
the House, later United States Senator from Missouri, in a 
speech advocating the passage of the solemn public act, pointed 
out that the clause in the Missouri constitution designated by 
Congress was not the free negro and mulatto clause to which 
that body objected. The Missouri Gazette of June 13, 1821, 
stated that this error was "a fact not generally known." Fol- 
lowing this revelation by Geyer, the solemn public act passed 
by a large majority. In a letter written May 23, 1892, by 
Judge Samuel Treat, St. Louis, to Mr. Carr, it was stated that 
the solemn public act was drawn up by Henry S. Geyer, who 
had told him "that the strange mis-recital was observed by the 
General Assembly and that it aided materially in securing the 
passage of the act." ^® Professor Hodder did not believe that 
the legislature was so informed, but this position is proven 
absolutely untenable as shown by the proceedings of the 
legislature as given in the Missouri Gazette of June 13, 1821. 
Not only was the Missouri general assembly aware of the seem- 
ing error made by Congress, and was thereby more strongly 
induced to accede to the condition imposed by Congress, but 
it is almost certain that after June 13, 1821, the people of Mis- 
souri were also aware of this error. Before the delivery of 
Geyer's speech, however, there was no hint given in any news- 
paper that this error had been noticed. To Henry S. Geyer 
must be given the honor of first detecting the misstatement by 
Congress, of being the author of the solemn public act of Mis- 
souri, and of being the principal advocate in the passage of that 
act. 

The binding force of the solemn public act in constitutional 
law was operative only to the extent of charging the President 
of the United States to admit Missouri in pursuance of the resolu- 
tion of Congress of March 2, 1821. Legally it was no binding 
obligation on Missouri. The general assembly of the State could 
amend the constitution acting only in a definite manner. The 
condition imposed by Congress was really an attempt to amend 
the Missouri constitution, but curiously, such an amendment 
was to be made by ordinary legislative process and not accord- 



" Carr, Error, etc., p. 8. 



Statehood in the Union. 317 

ing to the amending clauses of the Missouri constitution. The 
general assembly of Missouri acting in an ordinary manner did 
not have the power to amend the constitution, and, as it was 
the creature of the constitution, it could act only as that docu- 
ment prescribed. 

The moral force behind the solemn public act was, however, 
obvious and it was not until 1847 that a Missouri legislature 
openly violated it. In that year it was enacted: "No free negro 
or mulatto shall, under any pretext, emigrate to this State, 
from any other State or Territory." ^'^ The command placed 
by the constitution of 1820 in section twenty-six of article 
three on the Missouri general assembly had finally been obeyed 
despite the resolution of Congress of March 2, 1821, and the 
solemn public act of Missouri of June 28, 1821. 

The general assembly did not confine its activity to passing 
the solemn public act at this session. A number of laws were 
enacted, of which some were of importance. Acts were passed 
for the relief of debtors and creditors, for the establishment of 
loan offices — an expensive experiment — for the government 
of the militia, for the regulation of courts and judicial procedure 
and for the abolishment of imprisonment for debt in certain 
cases, and for further providing for the permanent seat of 
government. A remarkable law was enacted lowering the 
compensation of the members of the general assembly to three 
dollars a day and of the president of the senate and the speaker 
of the house to $4.50 a day each, but providing for the same 
compensation of the two chief clerks, five dollars a day, as had 
been previously set.^^ The appropriation bill for t\\\s session 
carried eight thousand dollars for the legislators' salaries and 
mileage, nine hundred and five dollars for printing, $220.08^ 
for miscellaneous expenses, and three hundred dollars for the 



"Mo. R. S., 1855, II. 1101. Law passed Feb. 16, 1847. The statement 
made by Professor Hodder that In 1825 the Missouri legislature passed an act 
excluding negroes and mulattoes "from the State unless citizens of another State, 
In which case they were required to prove their citizenship by presenting natural- 
ization papers," is not accurate. Naturalization papers were not mentioned in 
this act. (Mo. R. S., 1825, pp. 600f.) Such persons were required to produce 
a certificate, attested by the seal of some court of record in some one of the 
United States, evidencing that he was a citizen of such State. Cf., Mo. R. S., 
1835, pp. 414ff; Mo. R. S., 1845. pp. 755ff. 

•' Mo. Laws, 1st G. A., special sess., pp. 20f. 



318 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

inception of the loan office experiment — a total of $9,425.08^.-' 
Several special or private laws were also enacted. The resolutions 
passed and approved related to defining the southern boundary 
of the State, to the selection of the United States land wherein 
to locate the permanent seat of government, to the transmission 
by the Governor of a copy of the solemn public act to the Presi- 
dent of the United States and to each member of Congress, and 
to a memorial to Congress respecting lead mines. 

Ten amendments were proposed to the Missouri constitu- 
tion at this session. The first abolished the office of Chancellor 
and gave chancery jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and the 
Circuit Courts. The second vested law and equity jurisdiction 
in these latter courts but gave the general assembly power to 
establish courts of chancery. The third made the tenure of 
supreme and circuit court judges elective by a joint vote of both 
houses of the legislature. The fourth gave the general assembly 
power to fix the compensation of these judges and of the chan- 
cellor. The fifth made the same provision in regard to the 
governor's salary except that it could not be diminished during 
his term. The sixth disqualified United States salaried officials, 
while holding office, from holding a salaried State office. The 
seventh made the tenure of the auditor, secretary of state and 
attorney general, elective by a joint vote of both houses of the 
legislature. The eighth repealed the two thousand dollars 
salary clause for the governor that was in the constitution. 
The ninth repealed the two thousand dollars salary clause for 
judges. The tenth vacated the higher state judicial offices at 
the end of the first session of the next general assembly provided 
their successors had been elected and qualified .^° At the first 
session of the second general assembly of Missouri held in 
November-December, 1822, seven of these proposed amend- 
ments were adopted and became part of the constitution. These 
were the first, second, fourth, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth of 
the foregoing enumerated .^^ 

During the special session in June, 1821, an attempt was 
made to bring up the question of a state bank. Several peti- 

" Ibid., pp. 27f. 
"Ibid., pp. 38f. 
» Mo. Laws, 2nd G. A., 1st scss., pp. 146f. 



Statehood in the Union. 319 

tions and resolutions were presented from the inhabitants of 
St. Louis county requesting the establishment of a state bank 
and a bill was reported by Mr. Ball from a select committee 
favoring such a proposition. This bill was, however, ordered 
indefinitely postponed by a vote of twenty-four to seventeen.^^ 
After this vote had been taken a petition was presented from 
Montgomery county, praying that no state bank be established. 
Petitions from Howard, Cooper and Chariton counties relating 
to this subject were also presented, but these were conflicting 
in their purposes.^^ There was, however, no determined de- 
mand for a state bank and there was a widespread opposition to 
such an institution. The unfortunate experiences of other 
states with such affairs were strong arguments against Missouri 
venturing into this field and it was not until 1837 that Missouri 
took this step. 

The legislative activity of the June, 1821, session of the 
Missouri general assembly seems to have met with little criti- 
cism and was regarded as generally good. The Jackson Inde- 
pendent Patriot of July 7, 1821, did not favor the act for the 
relief of debtors and creditors, and thought that this act worked 
a hardship on the honest creditor. Public opinion supported 
the loan office law and was practically unanimous in favoring 
the solemn public act. Fourth of July celebrations were held 
in different parts of the State at which toasts were drunk in 
honor of Missouri and her potential admission.^^ Representa- 
tive of these were the toasts drunk at a "Dinner given by the 
Young Men of St. Louis at Bennett's Mansion House. Wm. 
V. Rector, presided." Following were some of the latter: 

"The President's Proclamation for the admission of Missouri — 'If it were 
done, when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done qiuckly." 

"The People of Missouri — Willing to contend for their just rights with 
moderation: ready to defend them at the point of the bayonet." 

"The American Senate — They are not to be intimidated by the threats of 
Brennus or the machinations of Cataline." " 

The long longed for proclamation of President Monroe 
was issued on August 10, 1821. In it were recited the joint 



"Jackson (Mo.) Independent Patriot, July 7, 1821. 

" Ibid. 

"St. Louis Enq., July 7, 21, 1821. 

" St. Louis Enq., July 7, 1821. 



320 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

resolution of Congress of March 2nd, and that part of Missouri's 
solemn public act which agreed to the condition imposed by 
Congress. It stated that in pursuance of the former resolution, 
the authority therein vested in the president, and the compliance 
of the Missouri general assembly with the condition imposed, 
the President declared "the admission of the said State of 
Missouri into this Union is declared to be complete." ^® 

Missouri's Struggle for Statehood ended in legal parlance 
on August 10, 1821. Few states have had greater difficulties 
in reaching this goal. No state has had abler public men 
working for her interests. And no people has conducted itself 
more temperately in the face of frequently insulting circumstances 
drawn out over years, than the state founders of Missouri from 
1804 to 1821. 



"B. S. of Mo., 1825, pp. 69f; Richardson, II. 95f. 



APPENDIX I. 



MEMORIAL. 

OF THE CITIZENS OF MISSOURI TERRITORY. 



To the honourable the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
of the United States of America, in Con- 
gress Assembled, 

The Petition of the undersigned inhabitants of the Territory of 
Missouri respectfully showeth : 

That your petitioners live within that part of the Territory 
of Missouri which lies between the latitudes 36 degrees 30 
minutes, & 40 degrees North, and between the Mississippi river 
to the East and the Osage boundary line to the West. They 
pray that they may be admitted into the Union of the states 
within these limits. 

They conceive that their numbers entitle them to the 
benefits and to the rank of a state government. Taking the 
progressive increase during former years, as the basis of the 
calculation, they estimate their present numbers at upwards 
of 40,000 souls. Tennessee, Ohio, and the Mississippi state 
were admitted with smaller numbers, and the treaty of cession 
guarantees this great privilege to your petitioners as soon as 
it can be granted under the principles of the Federal Constitu- 
tion. They have passed eight years in the first grade of ter- 
ritorial government, five in the second; they have evinced their 
attachment to the honour and integrity of the Union during 
the late war, and they, with deference, urge their right to be- 
come a member of the great Republick. 

They forbear to dilate upon the evils of the territorial 
government, but will barely name, among the grievances of 
this condition — 

M S— 21 (321) 



322 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

1. That they have no vote in your honourable body, and 
yet are subject to the indirect taxes imposed by you. 

2. That the veto of the territorial executive is absolute 
upon the acts of the territorial legislature. 

3. That the superior court is constructed on principles 
unheard of in any other system of jurisprudence, having primary 
cognizance of almost every controversy, civil and criminal, and 
subject to correction by no other tribunal!!! 

4. That the powers of the territorial legislature are limited 
in the passage of laws of a local nature, owing to the paramount 
authority of Congress to legislate upon the same subject. 

The boundaries which they solicit for the future state, they 
believe to be the most reasonable and proper that can be de- 
vised. The southern limit will be an extension of the line that 
divides Virginia and North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky. 
The northern will correspond nearly with the north limit of the 
territory of Illinois and with the Indian boundary line, near the 
mouth of the River Des Moines. A front of three and a half 
degrees upon the Mississippi will be left to the South, to form 
the territory of Arkansas, with the River Arkansas traversing 
its centre. A front of three & a half degrees more, upon a medium 
depth of 200 miles, with the Missouri River in the centre, will 
form the State of Missouri. Another front of equal extent, 
embracing the great River St. Pierre, will remain above, to 
form another state, at some future day. 

The boundaries, as solicited, will include all the country 
to the north and west to which the Indian title has been extin- 
guished. 

They will include the body of the population. 

They will make the Missouri River the centre, and not the 
boundary of the state. 

Your petitioners deprecate the idea of making the civil 
divisions of the states to correspond with the natural divisions 
of the country. Such divisions will promote that tendency to 
separate, which it is the policy of the Union to counteract. 

The above described boundaries are adapted to the lo- 
calities of the country. 



Memorial of the Citizens of Missouri Territory. 323 

The woodland districts are found towards the great rivers. 
The interior is composed of vast regions of naked and sterile 
plains, stretching to the Shining Mountains. The states must 
have large fronts upon the Mississippi, to prevent themselves 
from being carried into these deserts. — 

Besides, the country north & south of the Missouri is nec- 
essary each to the other, the former possessing a rich soil desti- 
tute of minerals, the latter abounding in mines of lead and iron, 
and thinly sprinkled with spots of ground fit for cultivation. 

Your petitioners hope that their voice may have some 
weight in the division of their own country, and in the for- 
mation of their state boundaries; and that statesmen, ignorant 
of its localities, may not undertake to cut up their territory 
with fanciful divisions which may look handsome on paper, 
but must be ruinous in effect. 

And your petitioners will pray, &c. 

S. Hall, Printer, St. Louis. [1817.] 



APPENDIX 11. 

MEMORIAL AND RESOLUTIONS of The Legislature 
of THE MISSOURI TERRITORY, and A Copy Of The 
Census of the fall of 1817: Amounting To 19,218 Males. De- 
cember 8, 1819. Referred to a Select Committee. Washing- 
ton: Printed by Gales & Seaton. 1819. 

To the Honorable the Senate, and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America, in Congress assembled: 

The Memorial of the Legislative Council, and House of 
Representatives, of the Territory of Missouri, in the name and 
behalf of the people of said Territory, respectfully sheweth, 

That their Territory contains at present a population little 
short of one hundred thousand souls, which is daily increasing, 
with a rapidity almost unexampled; that their territorial limits 
are too extensive to admit of a convenient, proper, and equal 
administration of government; and that the present interest 
and accommodation, as well as the future growth and prosperity 
of their country, will be greatly promoted by the following 
division, which your memorialists propose, to the end that the 
people may be authorized by law to form a constitution, and 
establish a state government, within the following limits: 

Beginning at a point in the middle of the main channel of 
the Mississippi river, at the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude, 
and running thence, in a direct line, to the mouth of Big Black 
river (a branch of White river) thence, up the main branch of 
White river, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to where 
the parallel of thirty-six degrees, thirty minutes, north latitude, 
crosses the same; thence, with that parallel of latitude, due 
west, to a point, from which a due north line will cross the Mis- 
souri river, at the mouth of Wolf river; thence, due north, to 
a point due west of the mouth of Rock river, thence, due east, 
to the middle of the main channel of the river Mississippi, in 
the middle of the main channel thereof, to the place of be- 
ginning. 

(324) 



Memorial and Resolutions. 325 

These are limits which, to a superficial observer, glancing 
over the chart of our country, would seem a little unreasonable 
and extravagant; but which, a slight attention to its geography 
(or more properly to its topography) will be sufficient to satisfy 
your honorable body, are not only proper, but necessary: The 
districts of country that are fertile, and susceptible of settlement, 
are small, and are detached and separated from each other, at 
great distances, by immense plains and barren tracts, which 
must for ages remain waste and uninhabited. These distant 
frontier settlements, thus insulated, must ever be weak and 
powerless in themselves; and can only become important and 
respectable, by being united; and one of the great objects your 
memorialists have in view, is the formation of an effectual 
barrier for the future against Indian incursions, by pushing 
forward, and fostering a strong settlement on the little river 
Plate, to the west, and on the Des Moines, to the north. 

Your memorialists are free to declare, and are happy in 
declaring, that they do not feel the necessity of enforcing their 
wishes by an elaborate detail of the blessings of self-government, 
or a particular enumeration of the rights and immunities guar- 
antied to them by the treaty of cession. Your memorialists 
feel a firm confidence, founded on the wise and generous policy 
heretofore pursued by your honorable body (and to which they 
owe their existence as a portion of the great American family) 
that they need only pray to be incorporated in the Union, and 
to show that it is not only "possible," but convenient and 
proper (according to the principles of the Federal Constitution) 
to have their prayer answered. 

There are many grievances of which your memorialists 
might complain, and complain heavily too, and many that are 
much more easily felt than described, yet most of them, it must 
be confessed, are inseparable from the form of government 
under which they live, and none of them have been imposed, 
through choice, by the general government. And your memorial- 
ists can feel no wish or motive now to complain of old grievances 
they have long borne with patiently; cheered with the hope 
that their sufferings must soon have an end, they would choose 
rather to forget them. There are, however, rights, privileges, 



326 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

and immunities, belonging to citizens of the United States, 
which your memorialists would proudly claim, to which they 
aspire, and with which they pray to be invested: These, they 
fondly believe, should not and will not now be regarded by 
your honorable body as mere matters of grace and favor. 

And though the enclosed documents are not so satisfactory 
as your memorialists would wish to have forwarded, they may 
still serve to shew you that the population included within the 
counties of New Madrid, Lawrence, St. Genevieve, Cape Girar- 
deau, Washington, St. Louis, St. Charles, and Howard, (which 
are within the above limits) are more than equal to the number 
of inhabitants heretofore required by the laws and constitution 
of the United States upon the admission of any new state into 
the union; and that, whilst every thing is hoped for, from the 
spirit of a generous and enlightened policy, much might have 
been claimed, in justice, on the faith of the treaty of cession. 

DAVID BARTON, 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
BENJAMIN EMMONS, 
President of the Legislative Council. 
St. Louis, 22d November, 1818. 
The foregoing is a true copy of the original. 

D. BARTON, 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Resolved, by the Legislative Council, and House of Repre- 
sentatives of the Territory of Missouri, That the Delegate repre- 
senting this Territory in Congress be requested to use his ex- 
ertions to procure the passage of a law, to authorize the people 
of this Territory, within the limits prayed for, in the memorial 
of the Legislative Council, and House of Representatives, 
passed the thirteenth day of November instant, (or such other 
limits, as nearly as possible to those prayed for, as Congress 
will grant,) to form a constitution and state government, and 
to provide for their admission into The Union, on an equal 
footing with the original states. 

Resolved, That the Delegate representing this Territory, as 
aforesaid, be further requested to use his exertions to procure, 



Memorial and Resolutions. 327 

in the said proposed state, the following donations and appro- 
priations, to wit: 

1st. Lead mines, with one section of land adjoining to 
each, and salt springs, with four sections of land adjoining each, 
to be leased for the use of the state. 

2d. One township of land for the support of a college. 

3d. One township of land, to be disposed of as the legisla- 
ture of the state shall direct, for the purpose of raising a fund 
for erecting state buildings, at the permanent seat of govern- 
ment. 

4th. All vacant lots and pieces of ground, in towns or 
villages, for the use of the towns or villages in which they lie, 
for the support of schools. 

5th. The sum of nine per centum, on the amount of all 
sales of public land, within the limits of the said proposed state, 
to be expended, under the direction of Congress, for the objects, 
and in the manner following, that is to say; one per centum 
thereof for perfecting the water communications between the 
Mississippi and lake Michigan, by the Illinois and Ouisconsin 
rivers. Six per centum thereof, for continuing the national 
western turnpike road, from Wheeling, on the Ohio, to Saint 
Louis; and two per centum thereof for opening a road direct 
from Saint Louis to New Orleans. 

6th. The sum of five per centum on the amount of the 
same sales to be appropriated and expended under the direction 
of the state legislature, as follow, to wit: two per centum for 
the support of schools in the State, and three per centum for 
opening roads and canals, and building bridges, within the 
State. 

Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
of this Territory be, and he is hereby, requested to forward to 
the delegate representing this Territory in Congress, one copy 
of the above resolutions, and also one copy of the memorial of 
the legislative council and house of representatives to Congress 
on the subject of a state government. And, also, to forward 



328 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

one copy of said memorial to the Speaker of the House of Repre- 
sentatives in Congress. 

DAVID BARTON, 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
THOMAS F. RIDDICK, 
President of the Legislative Council, pro tem. 
The foregoing is a true copy of the original. 

DAVID BARTON, 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
St. Louis, 22d November, 1818. 

Copy of the enumeration of the Missouri Territory, under 
the act of 1st February, 1817, and which was taken and returned 
in the fall of 1817 to the Governor of the Territory, as trans- 
mitted to me by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

6 Reps Fractions, 386 



Howard County . . 




3,386 


6 


Rep 


St. Charles 


do... 


2,866 


6 


do 


St. Louis 


do. . . . 


. 4,725 


9 


do 


St. Genevieve 


do... 


2,205 


4 


do 


Washington 


do.. . 


1,245 


2 


do 


Cape Girardeau 


do.. . 


2,593 


5 


do 


New Madrid 


do... 


669 


1 


do 


Lawrence 


do.. . 


1,529 


3 


do 


Arkansas 


do. n 


return 


1 





do. 


366 


do. 


225 


do. 


205 


do. 


245 


do. 


93 


do. 


169 


do. 


29 



19,218 36 

The census was taken in August and September, 1817, and 
is the male population only, independent of the females and 
blacks; to which is to be now added the internal increase and 
emigration ever since. 

JOHN SCOTT. 



(Author's Note: — The memorial above mentions documents that were entered 
with it. The author has never seen these documents in any form. They would, 
undoubtedly, throw much light on the condition of the territory at this time 
and It Is to be greatly regretted that they have not been preserved. It is possible 
that the documents referred to were the six resolutions adopted by the legislature 
and very probably another was an extract of the census taken in the summer of 
1817, — both of which are copied above. It should also be noted that in the 
introduction to the resolution, the statement is made that the memorial was 
"passed the thirteenth day of November instant." The authentication of these 
documents was made by Barton on the 22nd of November.) 



APPENDIX III. 

MISSOURI CONSTITUTION OF 1820. 

(Note: Copied from the Washington, D. C, edition, 1820.) 

We, the people of Missouri, inhabiting the limits herein- 
after designated, by our representatives in convention as- 
sembled, at St. Louis, on Monday, the 12th day of June, 1820, 
do mutually agree to form and establish a free and independent 
republic, by the name of "The State of Missouri," and for the 
government thereof do ordain and establish this constitution. 

Article I. Of Boundaries. 

We do declare, establish, ratify, and confirm the following 
as the permanent boundaries of said state, that is to say: "Be- 
ginning in the middle of the Mississippi river, on the parallel of 
thirty-six degrees of north latitude; thence, west, along the 
said parallel of latitude, to the St. Francois river; thence, up, 
and following the course of that river, in the middle of the main 
channel thereof, to the parallel of latitude of thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes; thence, west, along the same, to a point 
where the said parallel is intersected by a meridian line passing 
through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas river, where 
the same empties into the Missouri river; thence, from the point 
aforesaid, north, along the said meridian line, to the intersection 
of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of 
the river Des Moines, making the said line correspond with 
the Indian boundary line; thence, east, from the point of inter- 
section last aforesaid, along the said parallel of latitude, to the 
middle of the channel of the main fork of the said river Des 
Moines; thence, down, and along the middle of the main channel 
of the said river Des Moines, to the mouth of the same, where 
it empties into the Mississippi river; thence, due east, to the 
middle of the main channel of the Mississippi river; thence, 
down, and following the course of the Mississippi river, in the 
middle of the main channel thereof, to the place of beginning." 

(329) 



330 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 



Article II. Of the Distribution of Powers. 

The powers of government shall be divided into three 
distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a 
separate magistracy; and no person charged with the exercise 
of powers properly belonging to one of those departments, 
shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the 
others, except in the instances hereinafter expressly directed 
or permitted. 

Article III. Of the Legislative Power. 

Sec. 1. The legislative power shall be vested in a "General 
Assembly," which shall consist of a "Senate," and a "House 
of Representatives." 

Sec. 2. The house of representatives shall consist of 
members to be chosen every second year, by the qualified 
electors of the several counties. Each county shall have at 
least one representative, but the whole number of representa- 
tives shall never exceed one hundred. 

Sec. 3. No person shall be a member of the house of 
representatives who shall not have attained to the age of 
twenty-four years; who shall not be a free white male citizen 
of the United States; who shall not have been an inhabitant 
of this state two years, and of the county which he represents, 
one year, next before his election, if such county shall have 
been so long established, but, if not, than of the county or 
counties from which the same shall have been taken; and who 
shall not, moreover, have paid a state or county tax. 

Sec. 4. The general assembly, at their first session, and 
in the years one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, and 
one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, respectively, 
and every fourth year thereafter, shall cause an enumeration 
of the inhabitants of this state to be made; and, at the first 
session after each enumeration, shall apportion the number of 
representatives among the several counties, according to the 
number of free white male inhabitants therein. 

Sec. 5. The senators shall be chosen by the qualified 
electors for the term of four years. No person shall be a senator 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 331 

who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years; who 
shall not be a free white male citizen of the United States; who 
shall not have been an inhabitant of this state four years, and 
of the district which he may be chosen to represent, one year, 
next before his election, if such district shall have been so long 
established, but, if not, then of the district or districts from 
which the same shall have been taken; and, who shall not, 
moreover, have paid a state or county tax. 

Sec. 6. The senate shall consist of not less than fourteen, 
nor more than thirty-three members; for the election of whom 
the state shall be divided into convenient districts, which may 
be altered from time to time, and new districts established, as 
public convenience may require; and the senators shall be ap- 
portioned among the several districts according to the number 
of free white male inhabitants in each; provided, that when a 
senatorial district shall be composed of two or more counties, 
the counties of which such district consists shall not be entirely 
separated by any county belonging to another district, and no 
county shall be divided in forming a district. 

Sec. 7. At the first session of the general assembly the 
senators shall be divided by lot, as equally as may be, into two 
classes. The seats of the first class shall be vacated at the 
end of the second year, and the seats of the second class at the 
end of the fourth year, so that one-half of the senators shall be 
chosen every second year. 

Sec. 8. After the first day of January, one thousand 
eight hundred and twenty-two, all general elections shall com- 
mence on the first Monday in August, and shall be held bi- 
ennially; and the electors, in all cases, except of treason, felony, 
or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during 
their continuance at elections, and in going to, and returning 
from, the same. 

Sec. 9. The governor shall issue writs of election to fill 
such vacancies as may occur in either house of the general 
assembly. 

Sec. 10. Every free white male citizen of the United 
States, who shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years, 
and who shall have resided in this state one year before an elec- 



332 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

tion, the last three months whereof shall have been in the 
county, or district, in which he offers to vote, shall be deemed 
a qualified elector of all elective offices; provided, that no 
soldier, seaman, or marine, in the regular army or navy of the 
United States, shall be entitled to vote at any election in this 
state. 

Sec. 11. No judge of any court of law or equity, secretary 
of state, attorney general, state auditor, state or county treas- 
urer, register, or recorder, clerk of any court of record, sheriff, 
coroner, member of Congress, nor other person holding any 
lucrative office under the United States, or this State, miUtia 
officers, justices of the peace, and post-masters excepted, shall 
be eligible to either house of the general assembly. 

Sec. 12. No person who now is, or who hereafter may be, 
a collector or holder of public money, nor any assistant or deputy 
of such collector or holder of public money, shall be eligible to 
either house of the general assembly, nor to any office of profit 
or trust, until he sahll [shall] have accounted for and paid all 
sums for which he may be accountable. 

Sec. 13. No person while he continues to exercise the 
functions of a bishop, priest, clergymen, or teacher of any 
religious persuasion, denomination, society, or sect, whatsoever, 
shall be eligible to either house of the general assembly; nor 
shall he be appointed to any office of profit within the state, 
the office of justice of the peace excepted. 

Sec. 14. The general assembly shall have power to exclude 
from every office of honor, trust, or profit, within this state, 
and from the right of suffrage, all persons convicted of bribery, 
perjury, or other infamous crime. 

Sec. 15. Every person who shall be convicted of having, 
directly or indirectly, given or offered any bribe to procure 
his election or appointment, shall be disqualified for any office 
of honor, trust, or profit, under this state; and any person who 
shall give or offer any bribe to procure the election or appoint- 
ment of any other person, shall, on conviction thereof, be dis- 
qualified for an elector, or for any office of honor, trust, or profit, 
under this state, for ten years after such conviction. 



Missouri Constitution of 1S20. 333 

Sec. 16. No senator or representative shall, during the 
term for which he shall have been elected, be appointed to any 
civil office under this state, which shall have been created, or 
the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during his 
continuance in office, except to such offices as shall be filled by 
elections of the people. 

Sec. 17. Each house shall appoint its own officers, and 
shall judge of the qualifications, elections, and returns, of its 
own members. A majority of each house shall constitute a 
quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from 
day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members 
in such manner, and under such penalties, as such house may 
provide. 

Sec. 18. Each house may determine the rules of its pro- 
ceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, 
with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected, 
expel a member, but no member shall be expelled a second time 
for the same cause. They shall each, from time to time, publish 
a journal of their proceedings, except such parts as may in their 
opinion require secrecy; and the yeas and nays on any question 
shall be entered on the journal at the desire of any two members. 

Sec. 19. The doors of each house, and of committees of the 
whole, shall be kept open, except in cases which may require 
secrecy; and each house may punish, by fine or imprisonment, 
any person, not a member, who shall be guilty of disrespect to 
the house, by any disorderly or contemptuous behavior in their 
presence, during their session; provided, that such fine shall 
not exceed three hundred dollars, and such imprisonment shall 
not exceed forty-eight hours for one offence. 

Sec. 20. Neither house shall, without the consent of the 
other, adjourn for more than two days at any one time, nor 
to any other place than to that in which the two houses may 
be sitting. 

Sec. 21. Bills may originate in either house, and may be 
altere^I, amended, or rejected, by the other; and every bill shall 
be read on three different days in each house, unless two-thirds 
of the house where the same is depending shall dispense with 
this rule; and every bill, having passed both houses, shall be 



334 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

signed by the speaker of the house of representatives, and by 
the president of the senate. 

Sec. 22. When any ofificer, civil or military, shall be ap- 
pointed by the joint or concurrent vote of both houses, or by 
separate vote of either house of the general assembly, the votes 
shall be publicly given viva voce, and entered on the journals. 
The whole list of the members shall be called, and the names of 
absentees shall be noted and published with the journal. 

Sec. 23. Senators and representatives shall, in all cases, 
except of treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged 
from arrest during the session of the general assembly, and for 
fifteen days next before the commencement and after the 
termination of each session; and for any speech or debate in 
either house they shall not be questioned in any other place. 

Sec. 24. The members of the general assembly shall 
severally receive from the public treasury a compensation for 
their services, which may, from time to time, be increased or 
diminished by law; but no alteration increasing or tending 
to increase the compensation of members, shall take efTect 
during the session at which such alterations shall be made. 

Sec. 25. The general assembly shall direct, by law, in 
what manner, and in what courts, suits may be brought against 
the state. 

Sec. 26. The general assembly shall have no power to 
pass laws; First, For the emancipation of slaves without the 
consent of their owners, or without paying them, before such 
emancipation, a full equivalent for such slaves so emancipated; 
and. Second, To prevent bona fide emigrants to this state, or 
actual settlers therein, from bringing from any of the United 
States, or from any of their territories, such persons as may 
there be deemed to be slaves, so long as any persons of the same 
description are allowed to be held as slaves by the laws of this 
state. 

They shall have power to pass laws; First, To prohibit the 
introduction into this state of any slave who may have com- 
mitted any high crime in any other state or territory; Second, To 
prohibit the introduction of any slave for the purpose of spec- 
ulation, or as an article of trade or merchandise; Third, To 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 335 

prohibit the introduction of any slave, or the offspring of any 
slave, who heretofore may have been or who hereafter may be, 
imported from any foreign country into the United States, 
or any territory thereof, in contravention of any existing stat- 
ute of the United States; and. Fourth, To permit the owners of 
slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, where 
the person so emancipating will give security that the slave so 
emancipated shall not become a public charge. 

It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws 
as may be necessary. 

First, To prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming 
to, and settling in, this state, under any pretext whatsoever; 
and. 

Second, To oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with 
humanity, and to abstain from all injuries to them extending 
to life or limb. 

Sec. 27. In prosecutions for crimes, slaves shall not be 
deprived of an impartial trial by jury; and a slave convicted of 
a capital offence shall suffer the same degree of punishment, 
and no other, that would be inflicted on a free white person 
for a like offence; and courts of justice before whom slaves shall 
be tried, shall assign them counsel for their defence. 

Sec. 28. Any person who shall maliciously deprive of life 
or dismember a slave, shall suffer such punishment as would be 
inflicted for the like offence if it were committed on a free white 
person. 

Sec. 29. The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of 
state, auditor, treasurer, attorney general, and all judges of the 
courts of law and equity, shall be liable to impeachment for 
any misdemeanor in office; but judgment in such case shall 
not extend farther than removal from office, and disqualification 
to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit, under this state. 
The party impeached, whether convicted or acquitted, shall, 
nevertheless, be liable to be indicted, tried and punished, ac- 
cording to law. 

Sec. 30. The house of representatives shall have the sole 
power of impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried by 
the senate; and, when sitting for that purpose, the senators 



336 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

shall be on oath or affirmation to do justice according to law 
and evidence. When the governor shall be tried, the presiding 
judge of the supreme court shall preside; and no person shall be 
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the 
senators present. 

Sec. 31. A state treasurer shall be biennially appointed by 
joint vote of the two houses of the general assembly, who shall 
keep his office at the seat of government. No money shall be 
drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations 
made by law; and an accurate account of the receipts and ex- 
penditures of the public money shall be annually published. 

Sec. 32. The appointment of all officers, not otherwise 
directed by this constitution, shall be made in such manner 
as may be prescribed by law; and all officers, both civil and 
military, under the authority of this state, shall, before entering 
on the duties of their respective offices, take an oath or affirma- 
tion to support the constitution of the United States, and of 
this State, and to demean themselves faithfully in office. 

Sec. 33. The general assembly shall meet on the third 
Monday in September next; on the first Monday in November, 
eighteen hundred and twenty-one; on the first Monday in 
November, eighteen hundred and twenty-two; and thereafter 
the general assembly shall meet once in every two years, and 
such meeting shall be on the first Monday in November, unless 
a different day shall be appointed by law. 

Sec. 34. No county now established by law shall ever be re- 
duced, by the establishment of new counties, to less than twenty 
miles square; nor shall any county hereafter be established 
which shall contain less than four hundred square miles. 

Sec. 35. Within five years after the adoption of this con- 
stitution, all the statute laws of a general nature, both civil and 
criminal, shall be revised, digested, and promulgated, in such 
manner as the general assembly shall direct, and a like revision, 
digest, and promulgation, shall be made at the expiration of 
every subsequent period of ten years. 

Sec. 36. The style of the laws of this state shall be — "Be 
it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Missouri." 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 337 

Article IV. Of the Executive Power. 

Sec. 1. The supreme executive power shall be vested in 
a chief magistrate, who shall be styled "The Governor of the 
state of Missouri." 

Sec. 2. The governor shall be at least thirty-five years 
of age, and a natural born citizen of the United States, or a 
citizen at the adoption of the constitution of the United States, 
or an inhabitant of that part of Louisiana now included in the 
state of Missouri at the time of the cession thereof from France 
to the United States, and shall have been a resident of the 
same at least four years next before his election. 

Sec. 3. The governor shall hold his office for four years, 
and until a successor be duly appointed and qualified. He 
shall be elected in the manner following : At the time and place 
of voting for members of the house of representatives, the 
qualified electors shall vote for a governor; and when two or 
more persons have an equal number of votes, and a higher 
number than any other person, the election shall be decided 
between them by a joint vote of both houses of the general 
assembly at their next session. 

Sec. 4. The governor shall be ineligible for the next four 
years after the expiration of his term of service. 

Sec. 5. The governor shall be commander in chief of the 
militia and navy of this state, except when they shall be called 
into the serv^ice of the United States; but he need not command 
in person, unless advised so to do by a resolution of the general 
assembly. 

Sec. 6. The governor shall have power to remit fines and 
forfeitures, and, except in cases of impeachment, to grant re- 
prieves and pardons. 

Sec. 7. The governor shall, from time to time, give to the 
general assembly information relative to the state of the govern- 
ment, and shall recommend to their consideration such measures 
as he shall deem necessary and expedient. On extraordinary 
occasions he may convene the general assembly by proclama- 
tion, and shall state to them the purpose for which they are 
convened. 

M S— 22 



338 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Sec. 8. The governor shall take care that the laws be 
distributed, and faithfully executed; and he shall be a con- 
servator of the peace throughout the state. 

Sec. 9. When any office shall become vacant, the governor 
shall appoint a person to fill such vacancy, who shall continue 
in office until a successor be duly appointed and qualified ac- 
cording to law. 

Sec. 10. Every bill which shall have been passed by both 
houses of the general assembly, shall, before it becomes a law, 
be presented to the governor for his approbation. If he ap- 
prove, he shall sign it; if not, he shall return it, with his ob- 
jections, to the house in which it shall have originated, and the 
house shall cause the objections to be entered at large on its 
journals, and shall proceed to reconsider the bill. If, after 
such reconsideration, a majority of all the members elected to 
that house shall agree to pass the same, it shall be sent, to- 
gether with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall 
be in like manner reconsidered, and, if approved by a majority 
of all the members elected to that house, it shall become a law. 
In all such cases the votes of both houses shall be taken by yeas 
and nays, and the names of the members voting for and against 
the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house, respectively. 
If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within ten days 
(Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, 
the same shall become a law in like manner as if the governor 
had signed it, unless the general assembly, by its adjournment, 
shall prevent its return, in which case it shall not become a law. 

Sec. 11. Every resolution to which the concurrence of 
the senate and house of representatives may be necessary, 
except on cases of adjournment, shall be presented to the 
governor, and, before the same shall take effect, shall be pro- 
ceeded upon in the same manner as in the case of a bill. 

Sec. 12. There shall be an auditor of public accounts, 
whom the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the 
senate, shall appoint. He shall continue in office for four 
years, and shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by 
law. His office shall be kept at the seat of government. 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 339 

Sec. 13. The governor shall, at stated times, receive for 
his services an adequate salary, to be fixed by law, which shall 
neither be increased or diminished during his continuance in 
office, and which shall never be less than two thousand dollars 
annually. 

Sec. 14. There shall be a lieutenant governor, who shall 
be elected at the same time, in the same manner, for the same 
term, and shall possess the same qualifications, as the governor. 
The electors shall distinguish for whom they vote as governor, 
and for whom as lieutenant governor. 

Sec. 15. The lieutenant governor shall, by virtue of his 
office, be president of the senate. In committee of the whole 
he may debate on all questions; and when there is an equal 
division, he shall give the casting vote in senate, and also in 
joint votes of both houses. 

Sec. 16. When the office of governor shall become vacant 
by death, resignation, absence from the state, removal from 
office, refusal to qualify, impeachment, or otherwise, the lieu- 
tenant governor, or in case of like disability on his part, the 
president of the senate pro tempore, or, if there be no president 
of the senate pro tempore, the speaker of the house of repre- 
sentatives, shall possess all the powers, and discharge all the 
duties, of governor, and shall receive for his services the like 
compensation, until such vacancy be filled, or the governor so 
absent or impeached shall return or be acquitted. 

Sec. 17. Whenever the office of governor shall become 
vacant, by death, resignation, removal from office, or otherwise, 
the lieutenant governor, or other person exercising the powers 
of governor for the time being, shall, as soon as may be, cause 
an election to be held to fill such vacancy, giving three months' 
previous notice thereof; and the person elected shall not thereby 
be rendered ineligible to the office of governor for the next 
succeeding term. Nevertheless, if such vacancy shall happen 
within eighteen months of the end of the term for which the late 
governor shall have been elected, the same shall not be filled. 

Sec. 18. The lieutenant governor, or president of the 
senate pro tempore, while presiding in the senate, shall receive 



340 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

the same compensation as shall be allowed to the speaker of 
the house of representatives. 

Sec. 19. The returns of all elections of governor and 
lieutenant governor shall be made to the secretary of state, in 
such manner as may be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 20. Contested elections of governor and lieutenant 
governor shall be decided by joint vote of both houses of the 
general assembly, in such manner as may be prescribed by 
law. 

Sec. 21. There shall be a secretary of state, whom the 
governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, 
shall appoint. He shall hold his office four years, unless sooner 
removed on impeachment. He shall keep a register of all the 
official acts and proceedings of the governor, and when neces- 
sary shall attest them; and he shall lay the same, together with 
all papers relative thereto, before either house of the general 
assembly, whenever required so to do, and shall perform such 
other duties as may be enjoined on him by law. 

Sec. 22. The secretary of state shall, as soon as may be, 
procure a seal of state, with such emblems and devices as shall 
be directed by law, which shall not be subject to change. It 
shall be called the "Great Seal of the State of Missouri," shall 
be kept by the secretary of state, and all official acts of the 
governor, his approbation of the laws excepted, shall be thereby 
authenticated. 

Sec. 23. There shall be appointed in each county a sheriff 
and a coroner, who, until the general assembly shall otherwise 
provide, shall be elected by the qualified electors at the time 
and place of electing representatives. They shall serve for two 
years, and until a successor be duly appointed and qualified, 
unless sooner removed for misdemeanor in office, and shall be 
ineligible four years in any period of eight years. The sheriff 
and coroner shall each give security for the faithful discharge 
of the duties of his office, in such manner as shall be prescribed 
by law. Whenever a county shall be hereafter established, 
the governor shall appoint a sheriff and coroner therein, who 
shall each continue in office until the next succeeding general 
election, and until a successor shall be duly qualified. 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 341 

Sec. 24. When vacancies happen in the office of sheriff 
or coroner, they shall be filled by appointment of the governor; 
and the persons so appointed shall continue in office until 
successors shall be duly qualified, and shall not be thereby 
rendered ineligible for the next succeeding term. 

Sec. 25. In all elections of sheriff and coroner, when two 
or more persons have an equal number of votes, and a higher 
number than any other person, the circuit courts of the counties, 
respectively, shall give the casting vote; and all contested 
elections for the said offices shall be decided by the circuit 
courts, respectively, in such manner as the general assembly 
may by law prescribe. 

Article V. Of the Judicial Power. 

Sec. 1. The Judicial powers, as to matters of law and 
equity, shall be vested in a "supreme court," in a "chancellor," 
in "circuit courts," and in such inferior tribunals as the general 
assembly may, from time to time, ordain and establish. 

Sec. 2. The supreme court, except in cases otherwise 
directed by this constitution, shall have appellate jurisdiction 
only, which shall be co-extensive with the state, under the 
restrictions and limitations in this constitution provided. 

Sec. 3. The supreme court shall have a general superin- 
tending control over all inferior courts of law. It shall have 
power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo war- 
ranto, certiorari, and other original remedial writs, and to hear 
and determine the same. 

Sec. 4. The supreme court shall consist of three judges, 
any two of whom shall be a quorum; and the said judges shall 
be conservators of the peace throughout the state. 

Sec. 5. The state shall be divided into convenient dis- 
tricts, not to exceed four, in each of which the supreme court 
shall hold two sessions annually, at such place as the general 
assembly shall appoint; and, when sitting in either district, it 
shall exercise jurisdiction over causes originating in that dis- 
trict only: Provided, however, that the general assembly may, 
at any time hereafter, direct, by law, that the said court shall 
be held at one place only. 



342 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Sec. 6. The circuit court shall have jurisdiction over all 
criminal cases which shall not be otherwise provided for by law, 
and exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases which shall 
not be cognizable before justices of the peace, until otherwise 
directed by the general assembly. It shall hold its terms in 
such place in each county as may be by law directed. 

Sec. 7. The state shall be divided into convenient cir- 
cuits, for each of which a judge shall be appointed, who, after 
his appointment, shall reside, and be a conservator of the peace, 
within the circuit for which he shall be appointed. 

Sec. 8. The circuit courts shall exercise a superintending 
control over all such inferior tribunals as the general assembly 
may establish, and over justices of the peace in each county 
in their respective circuits. 

Sec. 9. The jurisdiction of the court of chancery shall be 
co-extensive with the state, and the times and places of holding 
its sessions shall be regulated in the same manner as those of 
the supreme court. 

Sec. 10. The court of chancery shall have original and 
appellate jurisdiction in all matters of equity, and a general 
control over executors, administrators, guardians, and minors, 
subject to appeal, in all cases, to the supreme court, under such 
limitations as the general assembly may, by law, provide. 

Sec. 11. Until the general assembly shall deem it expedient 
to establish inferior courts of chancery, the circuit courts shall 
have jurisdiction in matters of equity, subject to appeal to the 
court of chancery, in such manner, and under such restrictions, 
as shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 12. Inferior tribunals shall be established in each 
county for the transaction of all county business; for appointing 
guardians; for granting letters testamentary, and of adminis- 
tration; and for settling the accounts of executors, adminis- 
trators, and guardians. 

Sec. 13. The governor shall nominate, and, by and with 
the advice and consent of the senate, appoint, the judges of the 
supreme court, the judges of the circuit courts, and the chan- 
cellor, each of whom shall hold his office during good behavior, 
and shall receive for his services a compensation, which shall 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 343 

not be diminished during his continuance in office, and which 
shall not be less than two thousand dollars annually. 

Sec. 14. No person shall be appointed a judge of the 
supreme court, nor of a circuit court, nor chancellor, before he 
shall have attained to the age of thirty years; nor shall any 
person continue to exercise the duties of any of said offices after 
he shall have attained to the age of sixty-five years. 

Sec. 15. The courts, respectively, shall appoint their 
clerks, who shall hold their offices during good behavior. For 
any misdemeanor in office they shall be liable to be tried and 
removed by the supreme court, in such manner as the general 
assembly shall by law provide. 

Sec. 16. Any judge of the supreme court, or of the circuit 
court, or the chancellor, may be removed from office on the 
address of two-thirds of each house of the general assembly to 
the governor for that purpose; but each house shall state, on its 
respective journal, the cause for which it shall wish the removal 
of such judge or chancellor, and give him notice thereof; and he 
shall have the right to be heard in his defence in such manner 
as the general assembly shall by law direct; but no judge nor 
chancellor shall be removed in this manner for any cause for 
which he might have been impeached. 

Sec. 17. In each county there shall be appointed as many 
justices of the peace as the public good may be thought to 
require. Their powers and duties, and their duration in office, 
shall be regulated by law. 

Sec. 18. An attorney general shall be appointed by the 
governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate. 
He shall remain in office four years, and shall perform such 
duties as shall be required of him by law. 

Sec. 19. All writs and process shall run, and all prosecu- 
tions shall be conducted, in the name of the "State of Missouri;" 
all writs shall be tested by the clerk of the court from which 
they shall be issued, and all indictments shall conclude, "against 
the peace and dignity of the state." 



344 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Article VI. Of Education. 

Sec. 1. Schools, and the means of education, shall forever 
be encouraged in this state; and the general assembly shall 
take measures to preserve, from waste or damage, such lands 
as have been, or may hereafter be, granted by the United States 
for the use of schools within each township in this state, and 
shall apply the funds, which may arise from such lands, in strict 
conformity to the object of the grant, and one school, or more, 
shall be established in each township as soon as practicable 
and necessary, where the poor shall be taught gratis. 

Sec. 2. The general assembly shall take measures for the 
improvement of such lands as have been, or hereafter may be, 
granted by the United States to this state for the support of a 
seminary of learning; and the funds accruing from such lands, 
by rent or lease, or in any other manner, or which may be ob- 
tained from any other source, for the purposes aforesaid, shall 
be and remain a permanent fund to support a university for 
the promotion of literature, and of the arts and sciences; and 
it shall be the duty of the general assembly, as soon as may be, 
to provide effectual means for the improvement of such lands, 
and for the improvement and permanent security of the funds 
and endowments of such institution. 

Article VII. Of Internal Improvement. 

Internal improvement shall forever be encouraged by the 
government of this state; and it shall be the duty of the general 
assembly, as soon as may be, to make provision by law for 
ascertaining the most proper objects of improvement, in relation 
both to roads and navigable waters; and it shall also be their 
duty to provide by law for a systematic and economical appli- 
cation of the funds appropriated to those objects. 

Article VIII. Of Banks. 

The general assembly may incorporate one banking com- 
pany, and no more, to be in operation at the same time. The 
bank to be incorporated may have any number of branches, 
not to exceed five, to be established by law; and not more than 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 345 

one branch shall be established at any one session of the general 
assembly. The capital stock of the bank to be incorporated 
shall never exceed five millions of dollars at least one-half of 
which shall be reserved for the use of the state. 

Article IX. Of the Militia. 

Sec. 1. Field officers and company officers shall be elected 
by the persons subject to militia duty within their respective 
commands; brigadiers general shall be elected by the field 
officers of their respective brigades; and majors general by the 
brigadiers and field officers of their respective divisions, until 
otherwise directed by law. 

Sec. 2. General and field officers shall appoint their 
officers of the stafT. 

Sec. 3. The governor shall appoint an adjutant general, 
and all other militia officers, whose appointments are not other- 
wise provided for in this constitution. 

Article X. Of Miscellaneous Provisions. 

Sec. 1. The general assembly of this state shall never 
interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United 
States, nor with any regulation Congress may find necessary 
for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. 
No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United 
States, nor shall lands belonging to persons residing out of the 
limits of this state ever be taxed higher than the lands belonging 
to persons residing within the state. 

Sec. 2. The state shall have concurrent jurisdiction on 
the river Mississippi, and on every other river bordering on the 
said state, so far as the said river shall form a common boundary 
to the said state, and any other state or states, now, or hereafter 
to be, formed and bounded by the same; and the said river 
Mississippi, and the navigable rivers and waters leading into the 
same, whether bordering on or within this state, shall be common 
highways, and forever free to the citizens of this state and of 
the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll, 
therefor, imposed by the state. 



346 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Article XL Of the Permanent Seat of Government. 

Sec. 1. The general assembly, at their first session, shall 
appoint five commissioners, for the purpose of selecting a place 
for the permanent seat of government, whose duty it shall be 
to select four sections of the land of the United States, which 
shall not have been exposed to public sale. 

Sec. 2. If the commissioners believe the four sections of 
land so by them to be selected, be not a suitable and proper 
situation for the permanent seat of government, they shall 
select such other place as they deem most proper for that pur- 
pose, and report the same to the general assembly at the time of 
making their report, provided for in the first section of this ar- 
ticle; provided, that no place shall be selected which is not 
situated on the bank of the Missouri river, and within forty 
miles of the mouth of the river Osage. 

Sec. 3. If the general assembly determine that the four 
sections of land, which may be selected by authority of the 
first section of this article, be a suitable and proper place for 
the permanent seat of government, the said commissioners 
shall lay out a town thereon, under the direction of the general 
assembly; but, if the general assembly deem it most expedient 
to fix the permanent seat of government at the place to be 
selected by authority of the second section of this article, they 
shall so determine, and, in that event, shall authorize the said 
commissioners to purchase any quantity of land, not exceeding 
six hundred and forty acres, which may be necessary for the 
purpose aforesaid; and the place so selected shall be the per- 
manent seat of government of this state, from and after the first 
day of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six. 

Sec. 4. The general assembly, in selecting the above 
mentioned commissioners, shall choose one from each extreme 
part of the state, and one from the centre, and it shall require 
the concurrence of at least three of the commissioners to decide 
upon any part of the duties assigned them. 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 347 

Article XII. Mode of Amending the Constitution. 

The general assembly may, at any time, propose such 
amendments to this constitution as two-thirds of each house 
shall deem expedient, which shall be published in all the news- 
papers published in this state, three several times, at least 
twelve months before the next general election; and if, at the 
first session of the general assembly, after such general election, 
two-thirds of each house shall, by yeas and nays, ratify such 
proposed amendments, they shall be valid to all intents and 
purposes, as parts of this constitution; provided, that such 
proposed amendments shall be read on three several days, in 
each house, as well when the same are proposed, as when they 
are finally ratified. 

Article XIII. Declaration of Rights. 

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty 
and free government may be recognized and established, we 
declare, 

1. That all political power is vested in, and derived 
from, the people. 

2. That the people of this state have the inherent, sole, 
and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and 
police thereof, and of altering and abolishing their constitution 
and form of government, whenever it may be necessary to their 
safety and happiness. 

3. That the people have the right peaceably to assemble 
for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the 
powers of government for redress of grievances, by petition or 
remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms, in defence of 
themselves and of the state, cannot be questioned. 

4. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to 
worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own 
consciences; that no man can be compelled to erect, support, 
or attend any place of worship, or to maintain any minister of 
the gospel, or teacher of religion; that no human authority can 
control or interfere with the rights of conscience ; that no person 
can ever be hurt, molested, or restrained in his religious pro- 



348 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

fession or sentiments, if he do not disturb others in their re- 
ligious worship. 

5. That no person, on account of his rehgious opinions, 
can be rendered ineligible to any office of trust or profit under 
this state; that no preference can ever be given by law to any 
sect or mode of worship; and that no religious corporation can 
ever be established in this state. 

6. That all elections shall be free and equal. 

7. That courts of justice ought to be open to every person, 
and certain remedy afforded for every injury to person, property, 
or character; and that right and justice ought to be administered 
without sale, denial, or delay; and that no private property 
ought to be taken or applied to public use without just com- 
pensation. 

8. That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. 

9. That, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the 
right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the 
nature and cause of accusation; to have compulsory process 
for witnesses in his favor; to meet the witnesses against him 
face to face; and, in prosecutions on presentment or indictment, 
to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage; that the 
accused cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, 
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judg- 
ment of his peers or the law of the land. 

10. That no person, after having been once acquitted by 
a jury, can, for the same offence, be again put in jeopardy of 
life or limb, but if, in any criminal prosecution, the jury be 
divided in opinion at the end of the term, the court before which 
the trial shall be had, may, in its discretion, discharge the jury, 
and commit or bail the accused for trial at the next term of 
such court. 

11. That all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, 
except for capital offences, when the proof is evident or the 
presumption great, and the privilege of the writ of habeas 
corpus cannot be suspended, unless when, in case of rebellion 
or invasion, the public safety may require it. 

12. That excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive 
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 



Missouri Constitution of 1S20. 349 

13. That the people ought to be secure in their persons, 
papers, houses, and effects, from unreasonable searches and 
seizures; and no warrant to search any place or to seize any 
person or thing can issue, without describing the place to be 
searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as nearly as may 
be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirma- 
tion. 

14. That no person can, for an indictable offence, be pro- 
ceeded against criminally by information, except in cases 
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in 
actual service in time of war or public danger, or, by leave of 
the court, for oppression or misdemeanor in office. 

15. That treason against the state can consist only in 
levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them 
aid and comfort; that no person can be convicted of treason 
unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt 
act, or on his own confession in open court; that no person can 
be attainted of treason or felony by the general assembly; that 
no conviction can work corruption of blood or forfeiture of 
estate; that the estates of such persons as may destroy their 
own lives shall descend or vest as in cases of natural death; 
and when any person shall be killed by casualty there ought 
to be no forfeiture by reason thereof. 

16. That the free communication of thoughts and opin- 
ions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and that every 
person may freely speak, write, and print, on any subject, 
being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. That, in all 
prosecutions for libels, the truth thereof may be given in evi- 
dence, and the jury may determine the law and the facts, under 
the direction of the court. 

17. That no ex-post facto law, nor law impairing the 
obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, can 
be passed; nor can the person of a debtor be imprisoned for 
debt after he shall have surrendered his property for the benefit 
of his creditors in such manner as may be prescribed by law. 

18." That no person who is religiously scrupulous of 
bearing arms can be compelled to do so, but may be compelled 
to pay an equivalent for military service in such manner as 



350 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

shall be prescribed by law; and that no priest, preacher of the 
gospel, or teacher of any religious persuasion or sect, regularly 
ordained as such, be subject to militia duty, or compelled to 
bear arms. 

19. That all property subject to taxation in this state 
shall be taxed in proportion to its value. 

20. That no title of nobility, hereditary emolument, 
privilege, or distinction, shall be granted; nor any office created 
the duration of which shall be longer than the good behavior 
of the officer appointed to fill the same. 

21. That migration from this state cannot be prohibited. 

22. That the military is, and, in all cases, and at all 
times, shall be, in strict subordination to the civil power; that 
no soldier can, in time of peace, be quartered in any house 
without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in 
such manner as may be prescribed by law; nor can any appro- 
priation for the support of an army be made for a longer period 
than two years. 

Schedule. 

Sec. 1. That no inconvenience may arise from the change 
of government, we declare, that all writs, actions, prosecutions, 
judgments, claims, and contracts, of individuals, and of bodies 
corporate, shall continue as if no change had taken place; 
and all process which may, before the third Monday in September 
next, be issued under the authority of the Territory of Missouri, 
shall be as valid as if issued in the name of the state. 

Sec. 2. All laws now in force in the Territory of Missouri, 
which are not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in 
force until they expire by their own limitations, or be altered 
or repealed by the general assembly. 

Sec. 3. All fines, penalties, forfeitures, and escheats, 
accruing to the Territory of Missouri, shall accrue to the use 
of the state. 

Sec. 4. All recognizances heretofore taken, or which may 
be taken before the third Monday in September next, shall 
remain valid, and shall pass over to, and may be prosecuted in, 
the name of the state; and all bonds executed to the governor 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 351 

of the territory, or to any other officer or court, in his official 
capacity, shall pass over to the governor, or other proper state 
authority, and to their successors in office, for the uses therein 
respectively expressed, and may be sued for and recovered ac- 
cordingly. All criminal prosecutions and penal actions, which 
have arisen, or which may arise before the third Monday in 
September next, and which shall then be depending, shall be 
prosecuted to judgment and execution in the name of the state. 
All actions at law which now are, or which, on the third Monday 
in September next, may be, depending in any of the courts of 
record, in the Territory of Missouri, may be commenced in, or 
transferred to, any court of record of the state which shall have 
jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof; and all suits in equity 
may, in like manner, be commenced in, or transferred to, the 
court of chancery. 

Sec. 5. All officers, civil and military, now holding com- 
missions under authority of the United States, or of the ter- 
ritory of Missouri, shall continue to hold and exercise their 
respective offices until they shall be superceded under the 
authority of the state; and all such officers holding commissions 
under the authority of the territory of Missouri, shall receive 
the same compensation which they have hitherto received, in 
proportion to the time they shall be so employed. 

Sec. 6. The first meeting of the general assembly shall be 
at St. Louis, with power to adjourn to any other place; and the 
general assembly, at the first session thereof, shall fix the seat 
of government until the first day of October, one thousand 
eight hundred and twenty-six; and the first session of the general 
assembly shall have power to fix the compensation of the members 
thereof; any thing in the constitution to the contrary notwith- 
standing. 

Sec. 7. Until the first enumeration shall be made, as 
directed in this constitution, the county of Howard shall be 
entitled to eight representatives; the county of Cooper to four 
representatives; the county of Montgomery to two representa- 
tives; the county of Lincoln to one representative; the county 
of Pike to two representatives; the county of St. Charles to 
three representatives; the county of St. Louis to six repre- 



352 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

sentatives; the county of Franklin to two representatives; the 
county of Jefferson to one representative; the county of Wash- 
ington to two representatives; the county of Ste. Genevieve to 
four representatives; the county of Cape Girardeau to four 
representatives; the county of New Madrid to two repre- 
sentatives; the county of Madison to one representative; the 
county of Wayne to one representative; and that part of the 
county of Lawrence situated within this state shall attach to, 
and form part of, the county of Wayne, until otherwise pro- 
vided by law, and the sheriff of the county of Wayne shall 
appoint the judges of the first election, and the place of holding 
the same, in the part thus attached; and any person who shall 
have resided within the limits of this state five months previous 
to the adoption of this constitution, and who shall be otherwise 
qualified, as prescribed in the third section of the third article 
thereof, shall be eligible to the house of representatives, any 
thing in this constitution to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Sec. 8. For the first election of senators, the state shall 
be divided into districts, and the apportionment shall be as 
follows; that is to say: the counties of Howard and Cooper shall 
compose one district, and elect four senators; the counties of 
Montgomery and Franklin shall compose one district, and elect 
one senator; the county of St. Charles shall compose one dis- 
trict, and elect one senator; the counties of Lincoln and Pike 
shall compose one district, and elect one senator; the county 
of St. Louis shall compose one district, and elect two senators; 
the counties of Washington and Jefferson shall compose one 
district, and elect one senator; the county of St. Genevieve 
shall compose one district and elect one senator; the counties 
of Madison and Wayne shall compose one district, and elect one 
senator; the counties of Cape Girardeau and New Madrid shall 
compose one district, and elect two senators; and, in all cases 
where a senatorial district consists of more than one county, 
it shall be the duty of the clerk of the county second named in 
that district to certify the returns of the senatorial election 
within their proper county to the clerk of the county first 
named, within five days after he shall have received the same; 
and any person who shall have resided within the limits of this 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 353 

state five months previous to the adoption of this constitution, 
and who shall be otherwise qualified, as prescribed in the fifth 
section of the third article thereof, shall be eligible to the senate 
of this state, any thing in this constitution to the contrary 
notwithstanding. 

Sec. 9. The president of the convention shall issue writs of 
election to the sheriffs of the several counties, (or, in case of 
vacancy, to the coroners,) requiring them to cause an election 
to be held, on the fourth Monday in August next, for a gov- 
ernor, a lieutenant governor, a representative in the Congress 
of the United States for the residue of the sixteenth Congress, 
a representative for the seventeenth Congress, senators and 
representatives for the general assembly, sheriffs, and coroners; 
and the returns of all township elections, held in pursuance 
thereof, shall be made to the clerk of the proper county, within 
five days after the day of election; and any person who shall 
reside within the limits of this state at the time of the adoption 
of this constitution, and who shall be otherwise qualified, as 
prescribed in the tenth section of the third article thereof, shall 
be deemed a qualified elector, any thing in this constitution 
to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Sec. 10. The elections shall be conducted according to 
the existing laws of the Missouri territory. The clerks of the 
circuit courts of the several counties shall certify the returns 
of the election of governor and lieutenant governor, and trans- 
mit the same to the speaker of the house of representatives, 
at the temporary seat of government, in such time that they 
may be received on the third Monday of September next. As 
soon as the general assembly shall be organized, the speaker of 
the house of representatives and the president, pro tempore, 
of the senate shall, in the presence of both houses, examine the 
returns, and declare who are duly elected to fill those offices; 
and, if any two or more persons shall have an equal number of 
votes, and a higher number than any other person, the general 
assembly shall determine the election in the manner herein- 
before provided; and the returns of the election for member of 
Congress shall be made to the secretary of state within thirty 
days after the day of election. 

M S— 23 



354 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Sec. 11, The oaths of office, herein directed to be taken, 
may be administered by any judge or justice of the peace, 
until the general assembly shall otherwise direct. 

Sec. 12. Until a seal of state be provided, the governor may 
use his private seal. 

Done by the representatives of the people of Missouri, 
in convention assembled, at the town of St. Louis, 
on the nineteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and twenty, and of the 
independence of the United States of America the 
forty-fifth. 

DAVID BARTON, President of the Convention, 
and Representative from the County of St. 
Louis. 

From the County of Cape Girardeau. 
Stephen Byrd Joseph MTerron 

Alexander Bucknor [Buckner] Richard S. Thomas. 
James Evans 

From the County of Cooper. 
Robert P. Clark Robert Wallace. 

William Sillard [Lillardj 

From the County of Franklin. 
John G. Heath. 

From the County of Howard. 
Nicholas S. Burckhartt Benjamin H. Reeves 

Jonathan Smith Findlay John Ray. 

Duff Green 

From the County of Jefferson. 
S. Hammond. 

From the County of Lincoln. 
Malcolm Henry. 

From the County of Montgomery. 
Jonathan Ramsay James Talbott. 

From the County of Madison. 
Nathaniel Cook. 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 355 

From the County of New Madrid. 
Robert D. Dawson Christo. G. Houts. 

From the County of Pike. 
Stephen Cleaver. 

From the County of St. Charles. 
Hiram H. Baber Benjamin Emmons. 

Nathan Boone 

From the County of St. Genevieve. 
R. T. Brown H. Dodge. 

John D. Cook John Scott. 

From the County of St. Louis. 
Edw. Bates Wm. Rector 

Pr. Chouteau, jun. Thos. F. Riddick 

A. M'Nair John C. Sullivan. 

Bernd. Pratte 

From the County of Washington. 
John Rice Jones Samuel Perry. 

John Hutchings 

From the County of Wayne. 
Elijah Bettis. 

Attest: 

WILLIAM G. PETTUS, 

Secretary of the Convention. 

AN ORDINANCE 

Declaring the assent of the people of the State of Missouri, by 
their representatives, in convention assembled, to certain 
conditions and provisions in the act of Congress of the 
sixth of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, 
entitled "An act to authorize the people of Missouri terri- 
tory to form a constitution and state government, and for 
the admission of such state into the Union on an equal 
footing with the original states, and to prohibit slavery in 
certain territories." 



356 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

Whereas the act of Congress of the United States of America, 
approved March the sixth, one thousand eight hundred and 
twenty, entitled "An act to authorize the people of Missouri 
territory to form a constitution and state government, and for 
the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing 
with the original states, and to prohibit slavery in certain ter- 
ritories," contains certain requisitions and provisions, and, 
among other things, has offered to this convention, when formed, 
for and in behalf of the people inhabitating this state, for their 
free acceptance or rejection, the five following propositions, 
and which, if accepted by this convention, in behalf of the people 
as aforesaid, are to be obligatory on the United States, viz: 
'First; That section numbered sixteen in every township, and 
'when such section has been sold or otherwise disposed of, 
'other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, 
'shall be granted to the state for the use of the inhabitants of 
'such township for the use of schools. Second; That all salt 
'springs, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of 
'land adjoining to each, shall be granted to the said state for 
'the use of said state, the same to be selected by the legislature 
'of said state, on or before the first day of January, in the year 
'one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, and the same, 
'when so selected, to be used under such terms, conditions and 
'regulations, as the legislature of said state shall direct; pro- 
'vided, that no salt spring, the right whereof, now is, or here- 
'after shall be confirmed or adjudged to any individual or 
'individuals, shall, by this section, be granted to said state; 
'and provided, also, that the legislature shall never sell or 
'lease the same at any one time for a longer period than ten 
'years, without the consent of Congress. Third; That five 
'per cent, of the net proceeds of the sale of lands lying within 
'the said territory or state, and which shall be sold by Con- 
'gress, from and after the first day of January next, after de- 
'ducting all expenses incident to the same, shall be reserved 
'for making public roads and canals, of which three-fifths 
'shall be applied to those objects within the state, under the 
'direction of the legislature thereof, and the other two-fifths 
'in defraying, under the direction of Congress, the expenses 



I 



Missouri Constitution of 1820. 357 

'to be incurred in making of a road or roads, canal or canals, 
'leading to the said state. Fourth; That four entire sections 
'of land be, and the same are hereby, granted to the said state, 
'for the purpose of fixing their seat of government thereon; 
'which said sections shall, under the direction of the legislature 
'of said state, be located, as near as may be, in one body, at 
'any time, in such townships and ranges as the legislature 
'aforesaid may select, on any of the public lands of the United 
'States; provided, that such location shall be made prior to 
'the public sale of the lands of the United States surrounding 
'such location. Fifth; That thirty-six sections, or one entire 
'township, which shall be designated by the President of the 
'United States, together with the other lands heretofore re- 
'serv^ed for that purpose, shall be reserved for the use of a 
'seminary of learning, and vested in the legislature of said 
'state, to be appropriated solely for the use of such seminary, 
'by the Legislature." 

Now, this convention, for and in behalf of the people in- 
habiting this state, and by the authority of the said people, 
do accept the five before recited propositions offered by the 
act of Congress under which they are assembled; and, in pur- 
suance of the conditions, requisitions, and other provisions, 
in the before recited act of Congress contained, this convention, 
for and in behalf of the people inhabiting this state, do ordain, 
agree, and declare, that every and each tract of land sold by the 
United States, from and after the first day of January next, 
shall remain exempt from any tax laid by order, or under the 
authority, of the state, whether for state, county, or township, 
or any other purpose whatever, for the term of five years, from 
and after the respective days of sale thereof; and that the 
bounty lands granted, or hereafter to be granted, for military 
services during the late war, shall, while they continue to be 
held by the patentees, or their heirs, remain exempt as afore- 
said from taxation for the term of three years, from and after 
the date of the patents respectively: Provided, nevertheless, 
that, if the Congress of the United States shall consent to repeal 
and revoke the following clause in the fifth proposition of the 
sixth section of the act of Congress before recited, and in these 



358 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

words, viz: "That every and each tract of land, sold by the 
United States from and after the first day of January next, 
shall remain exempt from any tax laid by order, or under the 
authority, of the state, whether for state, county, or township, 
or any other purpose whatever, for the term of five years from 
and after the day of sale, and further," that this convention, 
for and in behalf of the people of the state of Missouri, do 
hereby ordain, consent and agree, that the same be so revoked 
and repealed, without which consent of the Congress as afore- 
said, the said clause to remain in full force and operation as 
first above provided for in this ordinance: and this convention 
doth hereby request the Congress of the United States so to 
modify their third proposition, that the whole amount of five 
per cent, on the sale of public lands therein offered may be 
applied to the construction of roads and canals, and the pro- 
motion of education, within this state, under the direction of 
the legislature thereof. And this convention, for and in behalf 
of the people inhabiting this state, and by the authority of the 
said people, do further ordain, agree, and declare, that this 
ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United 
States. 

Done in convention, at St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, 
this nineteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord, 
one thousand eight hundred and twenty, and of the 
independence of the United States of America the 
forty-fifth. 

By order of the Convention, 

DAVID BARTON, President. 
Attest, 

William G. Pettus, Secretary. 

STATE OF MISSOURI, 

St. Louis, September 27, 1820. 

I, David Barton, president of the convention of the late 
territory of Missouri, certify the foregoing to be true copies of 
the constitution of said state, and of "An ordinance declaring 
the assent of the people of the state of Missouri, by their repre- 



Missouri Constitution of 1S20. 369 

sentatives in convention assembled, to certain conditions and 
provisions in the act of Congress of the sixth of March, one 
thousand eight hundred and twenty, entitled 'An act to author- 
ize the people of Missouri territory to form a constitution and 
state government, and for the admission of such state into the 
Union, on an equal footing with the original states, and to 
prohibit slavery in certain territories." 

DAVID BARTON. 



APPENDIX IV. 

MISSOURI'S SOLEMN PUBLIC ACT, JUNE 26, 182L 

A SOLEMN PUBLIC ACT, declaring the assent of this 
State to the fundamental condition contained in a resolution passed 
by the Congress of the United States, providing for the admission 
of the State of Missouri into the Union on a certain covHtion. 

Whereas, the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States, by their resolution approved on the second day 
of March, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and twenty- 
one, did declare that Missouri shall be admitted into this Union, 
upon an equal footing with the original States in all respects 
whatever, upon the fundamental condition, that the fourth 
clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of the 
constitution, submitted on the part of said State to Congress, 
shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law, 
and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which 
any citizen of either of the States in this Union, shall be ex- 
cluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immu- 
nities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution 
of the United States; provided, that the legislature of the said 
State, by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of said 
state, to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit 
to the President of the U. States, on or before the fourth Monday 
in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon the 
receipt whereof, the President, by proclamation shall announce 
the fact, whereupon, and without any further proceeding on 
the part of Congress, the admission of said state into this Union 
shall be considered as complete. 

Now, for as much as the good people of this state have by 
the most solemn and public act in their power, virtually assented 
to the said fundamental condition, when by their representa- 
tives in full and free convention assembled, they adopted the 
constitution of this state, and consented to be incorporated 

(360) 



Missouri's Solemn Public Act, 1821. 361 

into the Federal Union, and governed by the constitution of 
the United States, which among other things provides that the 
said constitution, and the laws of the United States made in 
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be 
made under the authority of the United States, shall be the 
supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall 
be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or law of any 
state to the contrary notwithstanding; and although this 
general assembly are of opinion that the congress of the United 
States have no constitutional power to annex any condition 
to the admission of this state into the federal Union, and that 
this general assembly have no power to change the operation 
of the constitution of this state, except in the mode prescribed 
by the constitution itself; Nevertheless, as the congress of the 
United States have desired this general assembly to declare 
the assent of this state to said fundamental condition, and 
forasmuch as such declaration will neither restrain, or enlarge, 
limit or extend the operation of the constitution of the United 
States, or of this state, but the said constitutions will remain 
in all respects as if the said resolution had never passed, and 
the desired declaration was never made, and because such 
declaration will not divest any power or change the duties of any 
of the constituted authorities of this state, or of the United 
States, nor impair the rights of the people of this state, or im- 
pose any additional obligation upon them, but may promote 
an earlier enjoyment of their vested federal rights, and this 
state being moreover determined to give to her sister states, 
and to the world, the most unequivocal proof of her desire to 
promote the peace and harmony of the Union, Therefore, 
Be it enacted and declared by the General Assembly oj the State of 
Missouri, and it is hereby solemnly and publicly enacted and 
declared. 

That this state has assented and does assent that the fourth 
clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of the 
constitution of this state, shall never be construed to authorize 
the passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed in con- 
formity thereto, by which any citizen of either of the United 
States shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the 



362 Missouri Struggle for Statehood. 

privileges and immunities to which such citizens are entitled 
under the constitution of the United States. 

Approved, June 26, 1821. 

Terr. Laws. v. I. p. 758-759. 

Mo. Sess. Act, spec. 1821, pp. 9-11. 



INDEX. 



NOTE: — Abbre\natlons- const. — Mo. constitution of 1820; const, conv. — 
Mo. constitutional convention of 1820; (Del.) — Delegate to Mo. const, conv.; 
f — page following; n — note; pop. — population; rep. — representative; sen. — 
senator or senate. 

General terms, e. g., government, refer to Missouri or Upper Louisiaaa except 
where otherwise indicated. 



Adj. gen., const. 240, 345. 

Administrative acts const, conv. 168ff. 

Alcorn, James, rep. 268, 311. 

Allen, Bethel, rep. 268. 

Amendments, const. 228, 347; proposed 1820, 272, 277ff; 1821, 

318. 
Anti-Restrictionists in Mo. 1820, 121ff. 
Apportionment, del. const, conv. 75n, 167; rep. & sen. 1820, 

351f. 
Appropriation, Mo. Leg. 1820, 285; 1821, 317. 
Arkansas county, created, 46; divided, 46; opposed incorp. in 

Mo. 51f; pop. 46nfn; see Pop. 
Arkansas country and territory, boundary on north, 47ff; 

created 48; petitions for ter. govt. 54n; Mo. R. boundary 

petitions, 60; pop. 46n; omitted in Mo. ter. leg. petition, 

53; relation to Mo. 47f; represented unfairly in Mo. ter. 

leg. 1818, 53; trade outlet, 47f, 49; see Petitions. 
Ashley, Gen. Wm. H., 265ff, 271. 
Attorney gen. const. 240, 343; salary 285. 
Auditor, const. 240, 338; salary 285. 
Austin, Moses, 140. 

(363) 



364 Index, 

Baber, Hiram H. (Del.) 136, 149nf, 201. 

Bail, const. 348. 

Ball, John S. 123, 129n; rep. 268; 272; 311; on Bank 319. 

Bank, State, 190f ; const. 226, 344; gen. assbly. 1820, 289; 1821, 

318. 
Barcroft, Elias, sen. 269. 
Barton, David, (Del.) 42, 48, 84, 120f, 129, 136ff, 149n, 150nf; 

pres. const, conv. 167ff, 180, 187n; author, const. 198ff, 

leader conv. 203f; 249; slated for judge 258; vote for U. S. 

Sen. 272; elected Barton 273f; not permitted seat in Cong. 

290; letter to Mo. 1820-21, 293ff, 298f, 301; seat and salary 

in Cong. 306ff, 326. 
Barton, Joshua, 84, 141, 205; rep. 268f ; sec. state 286. 
Bassenit, G. 285. 
Bates, Edward, (Del.) 82, 121, 136, 140ff; children 143n; 149nf; 

176n; on taxation 180; on draft, const. 183f, 186, 188ff, 

192; author, const. 195ff, 204, 207; atty. gen. 286. 
Bates, Frederick 135n; cand. gov. 251f. 
Bates, William, rep. 268, 311. 
Beck, Abner 124n, 129n. 
Bennett, Wm. 166n. 
Bent, Silas, 167; sen. 269f. 
Benton, Thomas, author resol. 1819, 84ff ; 93n, 99n, 101, 114-134, 

136n, 138, 149nf; slated for U. S. Sen. 258; 272, 290; 

letters to Mo. 293ff ; seat in Cong, and pay, 306fT. 
Berry, Maj. T. 93. 
Bettis, Elijah (Del.) 150nf ; 201. 
Bill of Rights, 1812, 33; const. 183, 206. 



Index. 365 

Birthplace of Del., see Del, 

Bobb, John, 123; 129n. 

Boggs, L. W., 93. 

Bollinger, Geo. F., sen. 269. 

Boone, Jesse B., rep. 268; 288. 

Boone, Maj. Nathan, (Del.) 135n; 152f; 171; 196ff. 

Boone county, 288. 

Boone's Lick Country, pop. 42, 72n; on boundaries, 45, 57; on 

del. 70f, 167; 114; pro-slavery, 117; new counties, 288; 309. 
Boonville, Mo., 275. 
Boulware, Philip, rep. 268. 
Boundary— Ark. and Mo.: petition 1817, 39, 322; 1818, 43ff, 

324f; 1819, 50f, 60; 1820, 66ff, 213, 329; see Scott. 
Bounty lands, 80. 
Bowles, Caleb, 123; 129n. 
Brady, Thomas, 270. 
Bribery, const. 220, 332. 
Brickey, John S. 270; 288. 
Broadhead, James O. 141. 
Brown, John, 124n. 
Brown, Robert T. (Del.) ISOnf; 201. 
Bryant, David, 119. 
Buckner, Alexander, (Del.) 55n; 119n; 138n; 150nf; 176n; 179; 

184; author, const. 196fT. 
Burckhartt, N. S. (Del.) pro-slavery, 117n; 150nf; 201. 
Byrd, Abraham, sen. 269. 
Byrd, Stephen, (Del.) 21; 150f; 201. 
Caldwell, James, rep. 268; 270; 310n. 



366 Index. 

Caldwell, Samuel K. sen. 269. 

Callaway county, 288. 

Campaign, State election 1820, 254-266. 

Canals, 78. 

Cape Girardeau county, boundary, 34, 46; cand. const, conv. 

118f; delegates, 131f; public meet. 1819, 90; Mo. River 

boundary petition, 51; pop. 26. See Pop. 
Capitol of Mo. 72. See Perm, and Temporary Seat of Govt. 
Carr, Lucien, 313, 316. 
Carr, William C. 84. 
Carroll, Henry, 88f. 
Caucus, 1820 in St. Louis, 121, 259. 
Celebrations, see Resolutions, St. Louis etc. 
Census, see Population. 
Chancellor, see Judicial Department; 277. 
Chancery Court, see Judicial Dept.; 342. 
Chariton, Howard county, public dinners 1819, 93, 95; 147. 
Chariton county, 288. 
Charless, Joseph, 99n; see Editorials, Mo. Gazette; 120; 126; 

114-134; 171. 
Chouteau, Col. Augustus, 20; views on govt. 23; 93n. 
Chouteau, Pierre, Jr. (Del.) 121; 129f; 150nf; 176n; 192n; 200. 
Christy, Wm. State auditor, 286; 288. 
Circuit courts, see Judic. Dept., 342. 
Clark, Bennett, sen. 269. 
Clark, Mrs. Julia (Wm.) 257n. 
Clark, Robert P. (Del.) 117n; 135n; 160nf; 183; 200. 
Clark, Gov. Wm. 135n; cand. for gov. 256ff; 261f; 272. 



Index. 367 

Clay, Henry, Mo. — Me. bills, 62; toast to, 94n; second Mo. 

Comp. 1821, 295ff; Mo.'s idol 1821, 304. 
Cleaver, Stephen, (Del.) 152nf; 200. 
Clergy, in const. 219, 332. 
Cobb's amend, to Mo. bill 1821, 295. 
Cole county, 288. 

Collector of public money, const. 332. 
College, see University of Missouri. 
Committee on Enrollment, const. 192, 204. 
Committee on Style, const. 188fT, 207fif. 
Congress, Mo. Bill 1818, 38, 41; Mo. Question 1818-1819, 55fT; 

1819-1820, 62ff; 1820-1821, 290-301. For acts relating to 

Louisiana and Missouri, see Mo. Laws Organic. 
Congressional Restriction of slavery in Missouri, see Congress, 

Const. Conv., Public Opinion. 
Constitutional Convention of Missouri, 1820; Benton on, 86nf; 

committees, 182, 202fif; cost of, 175; election of delegates, 

114-134; the delegates, 135-165; draft, const. 182ff ; enabling 

act, 68-80; Journal of, 169ff; labors of, 166-192; see Mo. 

Const.; pay of del. 174ff; wire-pulling in, 258f. 
Constitutional History, see La. and Mo. Territory. 
Constitutions of States and United States, general 177f. 
Cook, John B. (Del.) 48; 89; 136; 149n; 150nf; conv. work, 

167f; 180; 183ff; 188ff; 192; author, const. 195ff, 204, 208; 

slated for judge, 258; judge, 286. 
Cook, Nathaniel, (Del.) ISOnf; 168n; 183f; 186; 200; camp, for 

lieutenant gov. 265; 272. 
Cooper county, 43; pro-slavery, 117; see Const. Conv., Pop. 



368 Index. 

Coroner, const. 247, 340. 

Cote Sans Desseyi, for temp, seat of govt. 275fT. 

Counties, size, 233, 336; courts in, 246. 

County courts, 342. 

Cummins, Richard W. sen. 269. 

Dawson, Robert D. (Del.) 150nf; 190; author, const. 196flf. 

Declaration of Rights, const. 234f!; 347. 

Delegates to Const. Conv. See Const. Conv. ; election of, 116- 

134; personnel of, 135-165; pay of, 175; list of, 354f. 
Desha, Capt. R. M. 93. 
Devore, Uriah J. rep. 268; 274; 276. 
Didier, Pierre, State treasurer, 286. 
Distribution of Powers, const. 214, 330. 
Dodge, Augustus Caesar, 147n. 
Dodge, Henry, (Del.) 89; 136; 144fT; 152f; 200. 
Dougherty, William, rep. 269. 
Douglass, Thompson, 167n; 270. 
Duel, Benton-Lucas, 260n. 
Dunklin county, 45. 

Easton, Rufus, 11; letter to Jefferson, 1805, 21; 123; 141. 
Eaton proviso to Mo. bill, 291. 
Economic position of Delegates, 163. 
Editorials in Mo. Newspapers, 1819 over action of Cong. 1818- 

19, 99-106; 1820-21, 293, 297fT; on el. of del. 114-134. 
Education, 77; 344; 209; leg. control in const. 225f, 327; see 

University. 
Education of Delegates, 163. 
Edwards' amend, to Mo. bill, 63. 



Index. 369 

Edwardsville (III.) Spectator, 104, 112n. 
Electors, see Leg. Dept; 331f. 

Elections: Territorial, 128n; State, const. 231, 340, 348; cam- 
paign 1820, 255ff; first, 249, 254f, 266ff, 353; U. S. Senators, 

1820, 271ff. 
Elliott, Henry, cand. for lieut. gov. 1820, 265; 272. 
Elston, Elias, rep. 268. 

Emancipation, const. 232; 334f; see Slavery. 
Emmons, Benjamin, (Del.) 42; 150nf; 168n; 180; 183f; 192; 

author const. 199ff; sen. 269; 275f ; 326. 
Enabling Act for Missouri, 66ff ; 114f ; see Mo. Laws Organic. 
English, Robert, rep. 268. 
Ernst, Ferdinand, 112n. 
Eustis' Mo. Bill 1821, 294f. 
Evans, James, (Del.) 176n; 183; 185; author, const. 196ff; 201; 

204. 
Evans, Joseph, rep. 268; 276. 
Executive Committee on Const. 235ff ; 337ff. 
Ex-Post Facto law, 349. 
Ferguson, G. W. 121; 167; 270. 
Findlay, J. S. (Del.) 93; 98; pro-slavery, 117n; 136; 151n; conv. 

work, 171nf, 188ff, 191f; author, const. 199fT, 204, 208. 
Flint, Rev. Timothy, 119. 
Florissant, Mo. anti-restriction slavery meet. 122; for temp. 

seat of govt. 275f. 
Foot's Mo. Resol. 1821, 295. 
Franklin, Mo. pub. meet. July 1819, 57, 88f, 93, 95; May 1819, 

92; 1821, 302, 309; for location of temp, seat of govt. 273f. 

M 8—24 



370 Index. 

Franklin county, 43n; see Const. Conv., Pop. 

Free Negroes, see Mulattoes. 

French, 160; see La. Dist. and Ter. 

Fromentin, EHgius, 20f. 

Fugitive Slave Law, 80. 

Gamble, Archibald, 167n. 

Gamier, Joseph V. 167n. 

Gasconade county, 288. 

Geiger, John, 119. 

General Assembly of Missouri: First, 1st sess. 1820, appor. 
248f; members, 268ff; meeting, 270ff; committees, 271; el. 
U. S. Sen. 271ff; loc. temp, seat govt. 271ff; amend, to 
const. 277ff; salaries and mileage, 281f; taxes and finances, 
283ff ; el. and sal. of State officials, 285f ; presidential elect- 
ors, 287f; misc. leg., new counties, perm, seat govt. & 288; 
const. 351; memorial to Cong. 294. Special Session, June 
1821: no demand for, 308; gov. proc. 309; meeting, 310; 
resol. of Cong. 31 Iff; solemn public act, 31 Iff; error in 
Cong. Resol. 315f; const, amend, proposed, 318; public 
opinion on session, 319; see also Leg. Dept. 

Gentry, Richard, 93. 

Geyer, Henry S. 84; 121; rep. 269; 278; 281; 289; 310n; 311; 316. 

Government, French views on, 13, 15, 22f, 30f. 

Governor, const. 221, 236fTf, 331, 337f, 342; first State camp, 
for, 256flF, 345. 

Grand Jury, see Presentments. 

Graves, Thomas W. rep. 268. 



Index. 371 

Green, Duff, (Del.) 92f; pro-slav. 117n; 136; 147ff; 150nf; work 

in const, conv. 171f; 180; 183f; author, const. 199ff; 207; 

rep. 268f;311. 
Great Seal of Missouri, see Seal, State. 
Hall, John, rep. 268. 
Hammond, Samuel, (Del.) 120; 131n; 149n; ISOnf; 167; 183; 

author, const. 196fT. 
Harper, William, slated for judge, 258; chancellor, 287. 
Harris, Tyre, rep. 268. 
Heath, John G. (Del.) 150nf; conv. work, 171f; 179; 184; 200; 

rep. 268f; 311f. 
Heath, R. & J. 276. 
Hempstead, Ch. S. 48. 
Hempstead, Edward, 34. 
Hemstead, Thomas, 114. 
Henry, Isaac N. 171n. 

Henry, Malcolm, (Del.) 131n; 135n; ISOnf; 201. 
Henry & Co., see St. Louis Enquirer. 
Herculaneum, Mo. meet, at 1820, 119; for loc. temp, seat govt. 

275. 
Hodder, Prof. 314, 316. 

Holmes' Rept. to House on Mo. Bill, 1820, 65; toast to, 94. 
Homestead Bill, 146. 
Honey, John W. 120. 
Horrocks, Edward, 167n. 
House of Representatives, see Leg. Dept. 
Houts, Christo. G. (Del.) 158nf; 191; 201. 
Howard, Gov. Benj. Proclamation 1812, 34. 



372 Index. 

Howard county, el. del. 1820, 132; State el. 1820, 265; grand 
jury 1819, 97; Mt. Pleasant Bap. Assn. 1819, 91; pro- 
slav. 117; slave pop. 120n; pub. meet. May 1819, 92, July 
1819, 57, 88f, 93; see also Boone's Lick, Const. Conv., Pop. 

Hudspeth, Geo. rep. 268. 

Hunt, Wilson P. 121fn; 129nf. 

Hunter, Nancy Ann, 147n. 

Hutchings, John, (Del.) 39; 158nf; 201. 

Illinois Enab. Act. 73f; 76. 

Immigration to Mo. along Mo. River, 1812-1818, 45; 115; 133. 

Impeachments, const. 230; 335. 

Indians, removal of to west of Miss. R. views of Jefferson 18f. 

Inferior tribunals, const. 246, 342. 

Internal improvements, 78; const. 226, 327, 344. 

Iowa, southern part little known 1818, 44. 

Irish of St. Louis, 96. 

Jackson, Mo. business and political center 1818, 55n; pub. 
meet. 1819, 90; 114. 

Jackson Missouri Herald, lOOn; 104; pro-slav. 120n, 130. 

Jefferson, Thomas, letter on moving Indians, 19; first Mo. Comp. 
65. 

Jefferson county, 43n; grand jury 1819, 98; cand. for conv. 119f; 
results of el. 131f. 

Johnson, James, rep. 268. 

Jones, John Rice (Del.) 38; 48; 136ff; children of, 140n; 144; 
149nf; 168n; 176n; 183ff; 187n; 191; author, const. 196ff; 
204; slated for U. S. Sen. 258, vote for, 272; clerk of house, 
270; judge, 286. 



Index. 373 

Journal Mo. Const. Conv. 1820, see Const. Conv. 

Judicial Department, const. 242ff; 341flf. 

Judiciary Com. on const. 183. 

Jury Trial, const. 348. 

Justice, const. 348. 

Justices of Peace, const. 343. 

Lafayette county, 135n. 

Lake Michigan to Miss. River, 78. 

Land Grants, Spanish, 11, 113; Lucas, 121, 274. 

Land Speculators, 12n. 

Lawrence county, pop. 47; relation to Mo. 49; trade outlet, 49; 

see Ark. Ter., Petitions, Population. 
Laws, for acts relating to La. and Mo., see Mo. Laws Organic. 
Lawyer Junto of St. Louis, 106n, 259. 
Lawyers, French dislike of, 24; in Mo. Ter. 155f ; and merchants, 

157f. 
Lead Mines, 77, 327. 
Leduc, M. P. 121; rep. 268; 273. 
Legislative acts of Const. Conv. 176flf. 
Legislative Committee of Const. Conv. 183. 
Legislative Dept. in Const. 215ff, 330-336. 
Legislative Process, const. 333, 338. 
Lieutenant Governor, const. 221; 239f; 339. 
Lillard, Wm. (Del.) slave owner, 117n; 135n; 150nf; 201; rep. 

268. 
Lillard county, 288. 
Limitations on Legislative Dept. const. 231f. 



374 Index, 

Lincoln county, 43n; grand jury 1819, 98; pro-slavery del. 118; 
el. of del. 131f; see Const. Conv., Pop. 

Lindsey, John, 94. 

Linn, Lewis F, 147n. 

Little Platte River, 44; 58. 

Logan, David, sen. 269. 

Logan, James, 288. 

Long, Wm. 124n; 129. 

Louisiana, cession and sentiment at time of, llff; Fr. and Span- 
ish title and law, 9; District, 15f; Province, 9ff; State, 
168n; Ter. 9-36; see Population. 

Lowndes com. of House, 291f. 

Lowry, Dr. J. J. 93. 

Lucas, John B. C. 95n; 121; 124f; 129; 272. 

McArthur, John, 270. 

McFarland, Wm. 268. 

McFerron, Joseph, (Del.) 150nf; 176f; 180; 191f; author, const. 
195ff; rep. 268. 

McGirk, Andrew S. (Howard co.) rep. 268; 279; 281; 311f. 

McGirk, Mathias (St. Louis co.) 121; sen. 269; 275f; judge, 286. 

Mackay, James, 123n. 

McNair, Alexander (Del.) 84; 121fn; 129; 136; 149n; 151nf; 201; 
camp, for Gov. 1820, 257fif; 262f; election and first mess. 
271, 277, 282; 285n; proc. and mess. 1821, 309f. 

Madison county, 43n; see Const. Conv., Pop. 

Maine-Missouri, see Mo. Comp. 

Mansion House Hotel, 166n. 

Marthasville, Mo. pub. dinner 1819, 94. 



Index. 375 

Masons in Const. Conv. 157f. 

Memorials, see Petitions. 

Merchants in Const. Conv. 157f. 

Messages, Gov. McNair, first, 271; special on const, amend. 

1820, 277; veto on salary for leg. 282; proc. 1821, 309; 

mess. June 1821, 310. 
Mileage, see Gen. Assembly. 
Militia, const. 227, 345; 239. 
Mine a Burton, 118. 
Missouri Boundary, see Boundary; n. w. part known in 1818, 

44; s. e. part in controversy 1818, 45. 
Missouri Compromise, first 1820, 63ff; opinion of Jefferson, 65; 

second 1821, 290-301, text of, 300, receipt of news of in 

Mo. 302. 
Missouri Constitution, 1820, length, 170; printing of, 173n; 

trans, into Fr. 173n; distrib. of, 173n; editions, 173n, 314; 

drafting of, 176ff; framing, 182ff; engrossed and adopted, 

192; authorship, 193-211; origin and content, 212-253; 

presentment to Cong. 291f; text of, 329-354. 
Missouri Herald, see Jackson. 

Missouri Gazette, (St. Louis) 99nf; lOOff; lOGf; for slavery re- 
striction, 120n, 130; against lawyer junto, 259. 
Missouri Hotel, 270. 
Missouri Intelligencer (Franklin) 99fn; 104; pro-slav. 12n; 

130; 309. 
Missouri Laws, Organic, 10; act of Cong. Oct. 31, 1803, 14; 

ibid. March 26, 1804, 15; ibid. March 3, 1805, 24fT; ibid. 

June 4, 1812, 30ff, 34; ibid. Apr. 29, 1816, 35; ibid. March 



376 Index. 

6, 1820, 65ff; Mo. Const. 1820, 212-254, 329-359; second 
Mo. Comp. March 2, 1821, 300; Proc. of Pres. Monroe, 
Aug. 10, 1821, 319. 

Missouri Question, see Cong., Mo. Comp., Scott. 

Missouri River, as northern bound, for Mo. 40; 48; 58ff ; 322. 

Missouri Statehood, first petition for, 1817, 37ff; first House 
bill for, 38; enabling act, 65; const. 212-253; de facto state, 
254-289; finances of, 283fT; see General Assembly, Mo. 
Laws, Petitions, Resol. 

Missouri Territory, const, hist. 9-36; name, 31. 

Monroe, Daniel, 268. 

Monroe, Pres. James, Mo. Proc. 1821, 319f. 

Montgomery county, 43n; pub. meet. 83, 94; grand jury, 98; 
see Const. Conv., Pop. 

Moore, Isidore, sen. 269; 275. 

Mount Pleasant Baptist Assn. resol. 1819, 91. 

Mulattoes, const. 224f; 335; in Cong. 290-301, 314. 

Murphy, Daniel, rep. 268. 

Musick, David, rep. 268. 

Nelson, Capt. 92. 

New Madrid county, 26; 34; demand for inclusion in Mo. 45f, 
49, 55; pub. meet. 1819, 90; see Const. Conv., Pop. 

New Madrid Strip, see Ark. Ter., Petitions, Public Opinion. 

Newport, Mo. for location temp, seat govt. 276. 

Newspapers in Mo. character in 1819-20, 99fn ; position on slavery 
99fT; extent of, 155; see Editorials, Jackson Missouri Herald^ 
Missouri Gazette, Missouri Intelligencer, St. Charles Mis- 
saurian, St. Louis Enquirer. 



Index. 377 

Northwest Ordinance, 115. 

O'Fallon, John, 87n. 

Ordinance of Mo. 1820, 79; 176ff ; 355ff. 

Ordinance of Const. Conv. for pay of delegates, 174f. 

Osage Boundary Line, 39; 46; 66. 

"Paddy's Wedding," 303. 

Palmer, Martin, rep. 268. 

Patten, N. Jr., 92n. 

Patton, Nathaniel, lOOn. 

Peck, Rev. M. 127n. 

Pemiscot county, demand for inclusion in Mo. 45. 

Penrose, Clement B. 123n. 

Permanent Seat of Government, 79; 190; 204; 227; com. on, 
288f; 327; const. 346. 

Perry, Samuel (Del.) 135n; 150nf; author, const. 195fT; sen. 
269. 

Perry county, 288. 

Petitions, 1804 La. Dist. 17ff; 1809-11, La. Ter. 26fT; Mo. for 
Statehood, 37-80; 1817, 37ff, 321flf; first presented to Cong. 
38; 1818, 41ff, 55, 324ff ; Mo. River Bound, petitions, 1819, 
50f, 57ff; Ark. petitions, 1818-19, 51, 60n; Mt. Zion Bap. 
Assn. 1819, 64; see Presentments, Resolutions; Cape Girar- 
deau CO. on const, amend. 297; Madison co. on same, 277. 

Pettibone, Rufus, 124f; 129n; judge, 287. 

Pettus, Wm. G. 149n; 150nf; secretary const, conv. 167ff; 
private sec. to Gov. McNair, 285n. 

Pike county, 43; see Const. Conv., Pop. 

Platte Purchase, 58. 



378 Index. 

Poetry, early Missouri, 303. 

Politics in pioneer Mo. days, 153ff. 

Population, Upper Louisiana, 1804, 11; 1810, 26; Mo. Ter. 

1817-18, 42f, 321; slave, 1818, 43, 324, 328; 43n; 1820 by 

counties, 69ff; 72n; slave and white, 116. 
Potosi, Mo. pub. meet. 1819, 89; for temp, seat govt. 274ff. 
Pratte, Bernard (Del.) 121; 129; 150nf; 190; 192n; 201. 
Preamble, const. 213f, 329. 
Presentments of Grand Juries of Mo. 96-99. 
President const, conv. 167n. 
Presidential Electors of Mo. 1820, 287f ; 299. 
Price, Risdon H. 123; 129; 129n. 

Printing, const, conv. 170ff; state, 1820, 285; 1821, 317. 
Pro-Slavery, see Anti-Restrictionists, Public Opinion, Slavery. 
Public Meetings in Mo., see Petitions, Resol., Toasts, cities etc. 
Public Opinion in Missouri, 1803-04 over La. Cession, llff; act 

of Cong. Oct. 1803, 14; ibid. March 26, 1804, 16ff, 21ff; 

ihid. March 3, 1805, 24; over Mo. R. Boundary petitions, 

1819, 57ff; over action of Cong, and slavery, 1819, 81-113; 

ihid. 1820, and election of del. 114-134; over Cong, and Mo. 

Const. 1820-21, 292ff, 297f, 300f, 304ff; over special sess. 

Leg. 1821, 319; see Editorials, Presentments, Resolutions, 

and Toasts. 
Ralls, Daniel, rep. 268; 273. 
Ralls county, 288. 
Ramsey, Jonathan (Del.) 150nf; conv. work, 174, 183, 185, 187n; 

author, const. 196fif, 204ff ; camp, for lieut. gov. 264f. 



Index. 379 

Ray, John, (Del.) slaveowner, 117n; 150nf; 179; author, const. 

196; rep. 268. 
Ray county, 288. 
Rector, Stephen, 92n. 
Rector, Wm. V. (Del.) 93n; 121; 122n; 129n; 151n; 166n; 171; 

176n; 183; 187n; 200; 205; 318. 
Reeves, Benj. H. (Del.) 98; 117n; 149n; 150nf; 191; 201; 209. 
Relfe, James H. rep. 268. 
Religion, of del. 162f ; const. 347. 
Representatives, see Leg. Dept; first leg. 1820, 268. 
Resolutions, against Cong, action, 1818-19, 82-92; St. Louis 

Cir. Crt. 1820, 293; ter. leg. 1818, 326ff. 
Restrictionists of slavery in Mo. 121ff; 131f. 
Revision of laws, const. 233; 336. 
Riddick, Thomas F. (Del.) 129n; ISOnf; 167fn; 191fn; author. 

const. 195flf; 209; 328. 
Roads, public, 78. 
Roberts' Amend. 63; resol. 299f. 
Rogers, Thomas, rep. 268. 
Rollins, James S. 141 ; 209. 
Rubottom, Ezekiel, rep. 268. 
Rutter, Edmund, rep. 268; 279; 311. 
St. Charles county, 26; 34; celebration 1819, 94; grand jury 

present. 1819, 97; demand for spec. sess. leg. 1821, 308f; 

see Const. Conv., Pop. 
St. Charles town, for temp, seat govt. 274ff . 
St. Charles Missoiirian, lOOn. 
St. Ferdinand township, pub. meet. 87; 95; 109n. 



380 Index. 

Ste. Genevieve county, 26; 34; pub. meet. 1819, 89; temp, seat 

govt. 275; see Const. Conv., Pop. 
St. Louis city, 15; pub. meet. 93, 95ff; receipt news passage 

Enab. Act. 114; caucus 121; restrictionist 126f; temp. 

seat govt. 275ff. 
St. Louis county, 26; 34; pub. meet. 84ff, 87f, 96; cand. for 

conv. 120ff; el. del. 128f; el. 1820, 265; resol. 293; demand 

for spec. sess. leg. 1821, 308f; see Const. Conv., Pop. 
St. Louis Enquirer, 37; 99nfif ; 30; 148; on const. 260f; on Cong. 

1820-21, 297f. 
Salaries, see Mo. Const; effect on 1820 el. 262f, 277. 
Saline county, 288. 
Salt River country, 70; 288. 
Salt Springs, 77; 327. 
Schedule, com. on, 191 ; const. 248, 350ff . 
Schools, const. 344; see Univ. 
Scott, John, (Del.) 38; opposed Mo. R. boundary, 48, 51; in re 

Ark. Ter. 54n, boundary, 58, intro. petition, 1819, 62ff; 

67; letter on del. appor. 72ff, 77, 107; resol. of approval 

of, 86; toasts to, 93f; 136; 140n; 149n; 150nf; 179f; 

author, const. 195fT; 204; 209; el. 1820, 264, 27; in Cong. 

1820-21, 306ff, 328. 
Scripps, George H. 118; 131n. 
Seal of the State, const. 241, 340; model of 1820, 285, 289; gov. 

priv. seal, 249. 
Second Mo. Comp., see Mo. Comp. 
Secretary of State, const. 240; salary 285f ; 340. 
Select committee on const. 184ff. 



Index. 381 

Senators, const, see Leg. Dept. 

Sentiment, see Public Opinion. 

Settlers in Mo., from slave-states, 115. 

Shannon, William, 288. 

Shaw, 94. 

Sheriff, const. 247, 340. 

Simonds, Nathaniel, 276. 

Simpson, Robert, 124f; 129n. 

Slavery, in Louisiana Dist. memorial Jan. 1804, 14; petition 
Sept. 1804, 18, 110; in Mo. Ter. Talmadge amend. 1819, 
53fn; pub. opinion in Mo., 115-134; extent and status of, 
116f, 133f; const. 224, 232, 334f; 303; see Benton, 84ffn; 
Cong.; Mo. Comp; Pop; Pub. Opinion; Scott. 

Smiley, Thomas, rep. 268; 311. 

Smith, Gen. T. A. 87n. 

Smith, Wm., rep. 268; 276. 

Solemn Public Act, opinion of in Mo. 304f; editor. St. L. Enq. 
1821, 306; 308; McNair's message on, 310; act. leg. 311ff; 
"error," 312ff; legality and force of, 316f; text, 360ff. 

Spanish land grants, see Land Grants. 

Statehood, see Mo. Statehood. 

Steamboat, "Independence" 92. 

Stevenson, Robert M. rep. 268. 

Stewart, Alexander, rep. 268; 270. 

Stoddard, Capt. Amos, 15. 

Storrs', amend, to Mo. bill, 64; to Foot's resol. 1821, 295. 

Strother, Samuel D, rep. 268. 

Stuart, Alexander, 123n. 



382 Index. 

Sullivan, John C. (Del.) 121; 123n; 129n; 135n; 150nf; 200. 
Supreme Court, see Judic. Dept.; camp, for judges, 1820, 256ff ; 

341. 
Talbott, James, (Del.) 150nf ; 176n; 200; sen. 269. 
Talmadge, amend. 1819, 55; toast to, 94. 
Taxation, non-residents, 179ff, 233; state 283ff ; 350. 
Taylor, toast to, 94. 
Teachers in const, conv. 164. 
Temporary Seat of Gov. 190; 210; 274fif. 
Tennessee const. 86. 
Tenure, see Leg. Dept. 
Thomas, Judge Richard S. (Del.) 55n; 149nfnf; work in conv. 

167f, 176n, 180; draft, const. 183f, 187n; author, const. 

196fT, 206; judge 287. 
Thomas' amend, to Mo. bill, 63. 
Thornton, John, 288. 
Toasts, 1819 in Mo. in re to Cong. 92-96. 
Todd, David, judge, 287. 
Treason, const. 349. 

Treasurer, State, const. 241, 336; salary 285. 
Treat, Judge Samuel, 316. 
Treaty of Cession, 1803, see La. 
Trexler, H. A. 116. 
Tribunals, inferior, const. 342. 
Tucker, Nathaniel B. 166n; judge 287. 
U. S. land in Mo., const. 233; 345. 
U. S. Senators from Mo. 1820, 256; see Barton, Benton. 



Index. 383 

University of Mo., 79; const. 226, 326, 344; see Education, 

Rollins, Scott. 
Vansant, Abner, 119f ; 131n. 
Veto, const. 338; see Messages of Gov. 
Viles, Prof. Jonas, 313. 
Vincennes, cap. La. Dist. 18. 
Walker, J. Hardeman, 55n. 

Wallace, Robert, (Del.). slave owner, 117n; 158nf; 176n; 200. 
Walton, Henry, rep. 268. 
Warner, Jabez, 270. 
Washington county, grand jury, 1817, 39; pub. meet. 1819, 

89; grand jury, 1819, 99; pro-slav. 118; el. 1820, 131; see 

Const. Con v.. Pop. 
Waters, Joab, rep. from Ste. Gen. 268; 311. 
Waters, Richard H. rep. from New Madrid, 268. 
Watson, Robert G. 288. 
Wayne county 43n; see Const. Conv., Pop. 
Western Emigrant, 37. 
Western Journal, 37. 
White, John B. 288. 
White River, 45. 
Wilcox, Maj. J. D. 92n. 
Whig party, 141, 143. 
Williams, Samuel, rep. 268. 
Wright, Morgan, rep. 268. 
Writs, const. 343. 
Young, (?) rep. 311. 

V 



